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?