Do Victoria Stafford's killers deserve a chance for parole? Warning: graphic details

Victoria Stafford

http://i.thestar.com/images/c6/14/0079f4ce42119c47d65ac01bb607.jpg 

Kevin Rafferty is on trial for for the kidnapping, sexual assault and first-degree murder of eight-year-old, Victoria Stafford. Rafferty's accomplice, Terri-Lynne McClintic, has pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and is currently serving a life sentence with no possibility of parole for 25 years. On April 8, 2009, Tori was walking home from school alone for the first time ever. McClintic lured the little girl to a vehicle where Rafferty was waiting. With little Tori in the car, they stopped at a local hardware store where McClintic bought the garbage bags in which they would wrap her body and the hammer they would use to kill her. They continued on to a secluded place where Rafferty sexually assaulted her while little Tori begged McClintic to make him stop. The little girl was then kicked and stomped on hard enough that her liver was lacerated and several ribs were broken. While she continued to fight for her life, one of the garbage bags was wrapped around her head before she was killed by repeated blows to the head from the claw hammer. The young girl's body was then wrapped in more of the garbage bags, tossed on a rock pile, and covered. She would not be found until July 19, 2009. 


Originally McClintic said it was Rafferty who delivered the fatal blows but she changed her story and confessed to having been the one that stomped on and kicked Tori and then hit her repeatedly on the head with the hammer. In my opinion it doesn't really matter who delivered the fatal blow. They both clearly planned the abduction and murder. Rafferty did not purchase the garbage bags and hammer but he drove the vehicle to the store and waited outside while McClintic bought them. He knew what she had purchased and what they were going to use them for. Details of what they did to Tori once they got her to the secluded area are horrific and the only questions left are exactly which one of them commit each of the horrendous offenses. I say as far as the punishment they should get, it does not matter. They deserve to spend the rest of their days behind bars. McClintic is already in prison for life and at the end of this trial, I hope Rafferty will be as well. Unfortunately, in Canada a life sentence does not actually mean life. It means that these despicable offenders have a chance at parole after 25 years! I used to try to convince myself that if people convicted of crimes that warranted a life sentence could be rehabilitated and become productive members of society, that perhaps they should be allowed back on the streets. I no longer think that. I do not care if they become Mother Theresa, they do not deserve a second chance at anything. Tori's abduction and subsequent murder has affected people all over the world in one way or another. Tori's brother will now grow up without his little sister, her parents without their little girl. They do not get a second chance of having her in their lives. Kevin Rafferty and Terri-Lynne McClintic decided that would never happen. Most significant in my reasoning that Kevin Rafferty and Terri-Lynne McClintic do not deserve a second chance at life is because they decided on April 8, 2009 that Tori's life was over. There is no option for little Victoria Stafford to have a second chance at life and in my opinion, there should be no option for either of them. 

A Mother's Options to Stop Her Childrens' Suffering

I heard a story on the radio yesterday that got me thinking. A mother has two children who were born with a degenerative disease, but this was not apparent until age 5. From birth to age 5, they developed totally normally but then slowly started to lose everything they had learned, such as how to walk and talk. I do not remember the name of this disease but it is extremely rare and also fatal. Their mother was told that they would not live past the age of 18. These two children are now in their 30s but they have been institutionalized for quite some time. They cannot do anything at all on their own and are fed through feeding tubes. The mother would like to end their lives to stop their suffering but both assisted suicide and euthanasia are illegal. She does have one legal option she could exercise -  she can have her children's feeding tubes removed and essentially legally starve them to death. She wants to end their suffering, but not by making them suffer even more. I just cannot fathom how ending someone's life by removing their feeding tube is legal, but humanely ending their life isn't.

The Retaliation Penalty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:St.F.X._Women's_Hockey.jpg

I have been involved, either as a player or a fan, in ice sports such as ringette and hockey since I was 8 years old. I am now 37, which gives me 29 years experience and observation. One on-ice occurrence in these sports that continues to perplex me is the retaliation penalty. Take the following situation as an example.

Two opposing players, player A and player B are battling one-on-one in the corner for the puck. Player A is using her stick a little too freely on player B, who continues battling for the puck despite player A's cross-checks to her forearm and back. Player B finally breaks free with the puck, or so she thinks, only to find Player A's stick blade hooked underneath her arm and around to the front of her chest, clearly impeding her forward motion. Player B looks to the referee and notices that no penalty is indicated. Out of frustration, Player B turns and punches Player A.

REFEREE's REACTION: Player B is penalized.

THOUGHTS: Player B should clearly be penalized. What is frustrating is that if the referee had called the initial penalty, this never had to happen in the first place. More often than not, by only punishing the retaliators, the referee loses total control of the game, opening the door for unnecessary violence and frustration.

The situation described above is frustrating but not perplexing. Let's take the same situation with a different call by the referee.

Two opposing players, player A and player B are battling one-on-one in the corner for the puck. Player A is using her stick a little too freely on player B, who continues battling for the puck despite player A's cross-checks to her forearm and back. Player B finally breaks free with the puck, or so she thinks, only to find Player A's stick blade hooked underneath her arm and around to the front of her chest, clearly impeding her forward motion. Player B looks to the referee and notices that no penalty is indicated. Out of frustration, Player B turns and punches Player A.

REFEREE's REACTION: Player A and player B are penalized.

THOUGHTS: This perplexes me! The referee had already clearly decided that player A's actions were not deserving of a penalty so why is player A penalized only after player B decides to take matters in her own hands? If player B had not turned and punched player A, no penalty would have been called at all but player B turns and punches player A and now both are penalized. How does this even make sense?

Women and Children First?

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16156906

Although coined in 1860, the phrase "women and children first" was made famous after the sinking of the Titanic on April 15, 1912. This evacuation policy actually comes from the actions of soldiers aboard the HMS Birkenhead which sank on February 26, 1852. There were not enough lifeboats for the 643 passengers on board the ship and soldiers made sure that women and children boarded the lifeboats first. Only 193 people survived this disaster. When Captain Smith gave the order to abandon the Titanic with "women and children first", some officers misinterpreted his orders and prevented men from entering the lifeboats altogether. The orders were meant to allow women and children into the lifeboats first, with remaining empty seats given to male passengers and crew.

Even though there were 2, 223 people on board the Titanic, there were only 20 lifeboats with a total maximum capacity of 1, 178 people. This meant that in the event of a catastrophe, 1, 045 people would be left to fight for their lives in the icy waters of the Atlantic. 1, 517 people died when the Titanic sank  although 500 more people could have been saved if lifeboats had been filled to capacity. As a result of the "women and children first" protocol, 74% of the women on board were saved, 52% of the children on board were saved and only 20% of the men on board were saved.

Due to the disproportionate percentages of women and children saved compared to men, many of the Titanic survivors became widows and orphans who struggled financially. Many of the men who died were life beneficiaries of trusts created by their parents but this did little for their widows. Typically these trusts continued for the men's children only with their widow having no control of the assets.

With the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic approaching, the recent capsizing of the Costa Concordia has brought the "women and children first" policy into question. There were 4, 200 passengers and crew on board this cruise ship. 11 people are confirmed dead and 21 remain missing and are presumed dead. The captain of this ship did not implement the "women and children first" policy and more than 99% of its passengers survived. During the sinking of a ship, every second counts and ensuring women and children are loaded into the lifeboats first takes considerable organization and experienced crew members to enforce this policy. It is said that during the sinking of the HMS Birkenhead that many women did not want to leave their husbands and that they were forced into the lifeboats. Similar scenes were depicted in the 1997 movie Titanic. 

So what do you think about the "women and children first" evacuation policy? Should it have been implemented on the Titanic? Should it be implemented in today's society, where women want equality? If it was to be implemented how would it apply to same sex couples? Would lesbian couples with children be allowed to escape into lifeboats keeping entire families intact? What then would happen to gay male couples with children? Would they be forced to hand over their offspring to women in lifeboats?

I think if someone wants to give up a seat on a lifeboat, that should be his/her choice, whether they are male or female. I think we have learned from the Titanic that ships must be equipped with lifeboats to give all passengers a fighting chance at survival.

Women's Hockey - Then and Now

Picture taken from this year's Mental Pausal Women's Hockey Tournament January 2012

Women's hockey is growing faster than I could ever have imagined in the Halifax metro area. When I first started playing in Cole Harbour, back in the mid 80s, there were only 4 other girls my age who played. There were no all-girls teams in the area and there were certainly no junior high, high school, or University women's teams for me to look forward to playing on. In fact, by the time I was ready to enter the Bantam level for the 1988-1989 season, which is when body contact began back then, the girls were told we could only play house league, where there was no body contact. That is when I left hockey for a bit.

Of course I could not stay away from the greatest game on Earth for too long. I only missed two seasons and then I got my shot at playing the game with body contact when I played Midget C in Cole Harbour. Two of the four girls I used to play with in the beginning were also on my team. Again, we played with the boys, as female hockey was still yet to be well-established in my hometown. And unlike today, there were no separate changing rooms for girls playing hockey, so we dressed in the same room as the boys. The stories I could tell you from this experience is a whole other blog entry!

In 1993 I began studying at Saint Mary's University and playing varsity soccer for the Huskies. Much to my happiness, I found out that the Huskies also had a hockey team I could play on - an all girls' team!!!!! The women's hockey program at Saint Mary's did not go varsity until my final year there when I helped the Huskies win the inaugural AUAA (now the AUS) title in the 1997-1998 season. We represented the AUAA for the first time ever at the CIAU (now the CIS) Women's Hockey Championships held at Concordia University! Up until this historic final season, Saint Mary's University competed in the Nova Scotia Women's Hockey League (NSWHL). The NSWHL officially began play in the 1994/95 season, with Saint Mary's as one of the league's seven teams.

After my final season with the Huskies I took another break from the game to further my education, get married and have babies. I played ball hockey in the summer to fulfill my need for hockey. I returned to the NSWHL in the 2008-2009 season as a spare player and have been playing full time in the league since the beginning of the 2009-2010 season.

The reason I am sharing all of this is because I want to hear from all you female hockey players out there! I am researching the history of women's hockey in Nova Scotia and women's hockey as it is now in Nova Scotia. I am amazed at how far we have come and look forward to what the future holds for this fascinating sport!

So please, leave a comment right on the blog or email me at writerbychoice@gmail.com all about your experiences, good or bad, with playing hockey in Nova Scotia. I want to know where you played, when you played, all-girls or mixed teams, any details you care to share. Here is a summary of my experience that you can follow:

• January 1985, Atom D for Cole Harbour on mixed team, same dressing room, no other girls on my team, first year of hockey ever!

• 1985-1986 season, Atom DD for Cole Harbour on mixed team, same dressing room, no other girls on my team

• 1986-1987 season, Pee Wee C for Cole Harbour on mixed team, same dressing room, one or two other girls on my team

• 1987-1988, Pee Wee B for Cole Harbour on mixed team, same dressing room, one other girl on my team

• 1988-1989 season, told girls we could only play house league due to body checking in the competitive Bantam levels, decided not to play the next two seasons

• 1991-1992 season, Midget C for Cole Harbour on mixed team, same dressing room, two other girls on my team

• 1993-1997, Saint Mary's University Club team, all girls team, Saint Mary's played in first ever season of NSWHL (1994-95)

• 1997-1998, Saint Mary's University Varsity team, all girls, won inaugural AUAA Championships and competed at CIAU Championships at Concordia University

• 1998-2000, Acadia University Women's Varsity team (I could practice with the team and play with them when they played teams from the NSWHL but not when they played other University teams as I had no years of varisty eligibility left since I played 5 years of varsity soccer)

• January - April 2008, played in a few tournaments here and there with all girls teams

• 2008-2009 season, spared with the Warriors in the NSWHL

• 2009-present, play with Frostbite in the NSWHL

If you played ringette or figure skated, I would also like to know that. I played ringette from 1983 until 1991 when I competed for Nova Scotia at the Canada Games in PEI. I returned to ringette for one season in 2001-2002. I have three daughters ages 9, 7 and 5, who all play ringette for Cole Harbour.

I do not care if you have only been playing hockey for one day, I want to hear from all of you! And boys, you are not excluded! If you had a sister or another female relative playing hockey, or coaching or in any other way involved in the sport, please tell me what you remember or know about them and their experiences in hockey. If you were the teammate of a female hockey player I certainly want to hear from you! Parents, aunts, uncles...I want all the stories from all different perspectives! Hope to hear from you soon!

Indecent Proposal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Indecent_proposal.jpg



Most everyone my age or older is familiar with the 1993 movie, Indecent Proposal, starring Demi Moore, Woody Harrelson, and Robert Redford,  which is based on the novel of the same name, written by Jack Engelhard.

David and Diana Murphy are childhood sweethearts and now a happily newlywed couple, who end up gambling away their life savings in hopes of winning enough to finance a real estate dream of David's.

Billionaire John Gage just happens to be in the right place at the right time and takes advantage of the couple's financial desperation by offering David $1,000,000 to spend the night with Diana. Just one night, and the couple would still have each other, and $1,000,000. David and Diana take the offer.

Would you?

The Role of Fighting in Hockey

Photo taken from http://jasonfeldman.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/hockey-fight/

Fighting is illegal in all hockey leagues but what distinguishes the North American Junior Hockey Leagues and the North American Professional Leagues is that they are the only leagues that do not punish fighting with an automatic ejection from the game. Fighting in these leagues is punishable by a mere five minute major penalty, now more commonly known among sports enthusiasts as "five for fighting". That really is a small price to pay if you get to show another player what's what with several blows to his/her face. In women's hockey, minor hockey, college and European hockey leagues and in International and Olympic Competitions, fighting is punishable by ejection. Funny how many future and current professional hockey players seem to be able to play without fighting when under those rules.


Supporters of fighting claim it must be left in the game because it deters violent hits, stick work and cheap shots, especially against star players like Sidney Crosby. Obviously it does not deter all cheap shots, since Mr. Crosby continues to suffer the effects of the initial head shot of one David Steckel. As Scott Morrison pointed out in his article on the subject entitled Taking fighting out of hockey would be wrong, "Fighting serves as an outlet on one side and a deterrent for misbehaviour on the other. Does it prevent cheap shots entirely? Of course not. There are no absolutes, just as the death penalty doesn't stop people from murdering."


Opponents of fighting want it out of the game because of the brutality of it all. Fighting causes fractures, facial injuries, head injuries resulting in brain damage and even death. According to the Wikipedia Article entitled Fighting in ice hockey, "Opponents of fighting cite that international and college hockey, which both harshly penalize fighting with suspensions, lack the incidents or "stick work" violence proponents claim to fear, and question what it is about North American professional ice hockey players—unique to major professional team sport — that renders them incapable of controlling themselves on the ice without fighting." 


I am a huge hockey fan and continue to play the game myself. I am shocked at the number of cheap shots and overall lack of respect for other players on the ice. I think that if we bring respect back into the game, fighting will no longer be necessary.


Perhaps the question then should not be "what is the role of fighting in hockey" but rather, "what is it about North American professional ice hockey players that renders them incapable of controlling themselves on the ice without fighting?" Mature professional athletes really should be able to don't you think?

Please Comment on the Posts - Share Your Thoughts

Hello readers :-)

The idea of this blog is to get us all thinking. The dilemmas presented in the blogs are ones I have heard on the news or that have been presented to us through popular media (in novels, movies, etc.). They are the dilemmas that often get us thinking what would I do if that was me. I want to know what you think! Initial thoughts, what you would do - anything - just think and share :-)

When responding, please be respectful. The question of what would you do in a certain situation is not posed to judge the decisions of the people who actually found themselves in these situations but rather to get people thinking beyond their initial thoughts. My hope is that we can engage in respectful discussions about situations we hope to never find ourselves in and from viewpoints that may never have crossed our minds.

Comments that do not encourage these respectful discussions will be deleted.

If He Knew Then What He Knows Now...

If Antonio C. had found out about his wife, Rosa's, extramarital affair when it happened, it is probably safe to say their lives would have turned out much differently.

The Italian couple met and married in the 1930s and together had 5 children. They have welcomed 12 grandchildren and 1 great-grandchild into this world. In 2011 they celebrated their 77th wedding anniversary together despite their marriage hitting a rocky spot years earlier. It has been reported that 10 years ago, Antonio moved in with one of his sons because of marital unbliss but that he and Rosa eventually sorted things out. Sadly, this is not the case for the couple now.

Shortly before Christmas 2011, while rummaging through an old chest, Antonio reportedly found letters that evidenced an affair between Rosa and another man in the 1940s! 96 year-old Rosa admitted to the affair she had in her late 20s and/or early 30s, and Antonio filed for divorce!

I am sure record-setting was the last thing on his mind at this point, but at 99 years of age, Antonio becomes the oldest person on record to ever file for divorce. Apparently being in your late 90s is not a deterrent to divorce as the record previously belonged to two 98-year-olds, Bertie and Jessie Wood. At the time of their divorce, in 2009, the couple had been married 36 years.

My initial reaction to hearing this story was really? At 99 what is the point of getting divorced? And then I heard a local radio host's opinion on the opinion which was "get over it" and that got me thinking...

My initial reaction was sadly based solely on age and the fact that not too many of us live to be 99 and therefore, if Antonio did not have that many years left to live, why bother going through the headache of divorce? But then I thought about the fact that Antonio has already lived to be 99 years old and is still spry enough to be going through old chests, discovering love letters, confronting his wife about an affair and then getting upset enough about it to want a divorce. I figure at this rate, the guy could live another 20 years so why stay married? Even if he died tomorrow, should he have to stay married to someone he did not want to just because he is 99?

The radio host who said "get over it" spoke of the fact that they had been through so much together because they had been married for 77 years. He said that they must have shared an awful lot of hand holding and being there for the other when one was sick, etc. I say that would all depend on the kind of marriage they had. Sadly, just because a couple is married does not mean they are "there" for each other. We have no idea what kind of a relationship this couple had so what they had been through together may not necessarily be worth holding onto in light of the new evidence.

What bothers me about this story is the fact that Rosa still had the letters. Most people keep things that mean something to them, something they do not want to forget, which is probably why she kept them. It is possible that she may have initially wanted to hold on to what she had with this man and eventually fell out of love or lust with him and then just forgot she even still had the letters. Anything is possible. My gut is telling me this is not the case here and that she held onto those letters for a reason. And let's face it, in the 1940s, divorce was not a popular solution to marital problems. Most couples stayed married whether they wanted to or not. I speculate that Rosa wished she could be with the man with whom she had the affair but for whatever reason(s), chose to stay with Antonio. I also speculate that it is safe to say that if Antonio had found out about the affair when it was happening, he would have filed for divorce then. Just as divorce in the 1940s was not popular, neither is divorce at the age of 99 and that certainly did not stop him now!

What would you do if you found out your wife or husband of 77 years had an affair 6 decades ago and you were both now in your late 90s?