Other Topics > Solved Cases

Candace Derksen - 13 - Murdered November 30, 1984 - SOLVED

<< < (2/14) > >>

Adrian:

This guy is quite interesting, and is worth the effort, for   LE, to look into it further, Maybe more unsolveds. Closure. We have had years, of missing and/or murdered.

Young children being exploited, and killed. The freaking pedophiles. If they are sadistic it often turns more tragic, as       they are fantasizing  about killing. It would be good to give these parents, of the young from the past, still unsolved.Arthur Shawcross was simular to this. guy.It must be devastating to wait day after day, after day, always wondering, what happened.

CraftyGal:
Here is the History of the Dangerous Offendeers Act.  They are in the process of changing the Act under Bill C-27.  Here is the link: http://www.ccja-acjp.ca/en/c27en.html


--- Quote ---History of Dangerous Offender Legislation

Canada first introduced legislation to deal with ?dangerous? offenders in 1947. Called The Habitual Offender Act, the legislation was designed to incapacitate offenders with lengthy criminal records by keeping them in prison and away from the general public (Jakimeic et.al.,1986). In 1948 a second piece of legislation, known as the Sexual Psychopath Act, was passed to ensure that dangerous sexual offenders would be identified and treated by mental health professionals (Petrunik, 1994). Once convicted of a designated sexual offence, the offender would be assessed by two psychiatrists, who would determine if the individual was ?dangerous?. A finding of sexual psychopathy would be accompanied by an indeterminate sentence, to be reviewed by the justice minister every three years for parole eligibility.

The term ?sexual psychopath? was very vague and not well defined in the legislation, lending uncertainty to the designation and making it difficult to meet the legal standard of proof ? beyond a reasonable doubt (McRuer, 1958, cited in Petrunik, 1994).  In 1960, the Dangerous Sexual Offender Act replaced the 1948 legislation and set out specific criteria for determining dangerousness including the offender?s criminal record and the circumstances of the current offence. Only one conviction for a designated sexual offence was necessary for a finding of dangerousness, and an application for a dangerousness hearing could be made up to three months post-release. A finding of dangerousness resulted in an indeterminate sentence that would be reviewed every three years.

In 1969 the report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections (Ouimet Report) found that the Habitual Offender and Dangerous Sexual Offender [statutes were] being applied erratically and ineffectively across the country. The Habitual Offender provisions were often used to indefinitely incarcerate repeat nuisance and property offenders and were not being reserved for those most dangerous to the public (Webster & Dickens, 1983) [while] the Dangerous Sexual Offender provisions were [often being] applied to those who had committed sexual offences but were not violent. On the other hand, some serious violent offenders who could be considered to be ?dangerous? on the basis of a demonstrated proclivity to commit a variety of serious personal injury offences were not being captured under either provision. The Ouimet Report did advise the continued use of clinical assessment and treatment for dangerous offenders, while the Law Commission of Canada disagreed and recommended against the use of indeterminate sentences and clinical assessments of dangerousness.

In 1977 new legislation was enacted, repealing both the Habitual Offender and Dangerous Sexual Offender Acts. The new Act was designed to be applicable to both sexual offenders and those who had committed violent acts of a non-sexual nature and provided for determinate or indeterminate sentences and parole eligibility after three years (Webster & Dickens, 1983).  The determination of dangerousness was to be made following conviction but prior to sentencing.  In 1988, legislation was put in place to allow the National Parole Board to detain offenders (who had not been designated as dangerous) past statutory release to the end of their sentence in the interests of public safety, if they felt that the individual was likely to re-offend in a violent or sexual manner.

In 1997, Bill C-55 was enacted, making significant changes to strengthen measures for dealing with the most serious offenders.  The Act  required the testimony of only one psychiatrist (rather than two) at a dangerousness hearing, lengthened the waiting period for parole eligibility to seven (rather than three) years, and rescinded the option of determinate sentences for offenders who had been declared dangerous.  The Act also created a second category of Long Term Offender, who would be subject to a determinate sentence followed by a post-release probationary period of up to ten years. Additionally, the Act extended the period in which application for a finding of dangerous may be made up to six month following the time of sentencing. Finally, of note, the 1997 legislation created a new category of judicial restraint (810.2) aimed at monitoring persons who are likely to commit a personal injury offence.

The 1997 legislation embodies the current provisions for addressing serious violent and sexual offenders.  Currently, any person convicted of a serious personal injury offence, but not yet sentenced who constitutes a danger to the life, safety, or mental/physical well-being of others may be subject to a dangerous offender application by the crown. The offence committed must be a violent offence that warrants a minimum 10 year sentence or a sexual offence as defined in sections 271 (sexual assault), 272 (sexual assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm) and 273 (aggravated sexual assault). The determination of dangerousness is to be based on evidence establishing: a pattern of unrestrained behaviour and/or, a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour and/or, any behaviour that is of such a brutal nature that it can be inferred that the offender?s future behaviour is unlikely to be inhibited by normal restraint (Section 753 (1)(a). Behaviour that exhibits a failure to control sexual impulses that leads to harm to others is also grounds for a finding of dangerousness. If an individual  convicted of an offence subject to a minimum two year sentence meets the above criteria for dangerousness but it is determined that that the risk he poses to the public can be managed through intensive monitoring and various probation conditions including participation in treatment he can be found to be a Long-Term offender. In this case, he will receive a determinate sentence of two years or more plus up to ten years of community supervision.
--- End quote ---

Some information on Bill C-27:


--- Quote ---History of Dangerous Offender Legislation

Canada first introduced legislation to deal with ?dangerous? offenders in 1947. Called The Habitual Offender Act, the legislation was designed to incapacitate offenders with lengthy criminal records by keeping them in prison and away from the general public (Jakimeic et.al.,1986). In 1948 a second piece of legislation, known as the Sexual Psychopath Act, was passed to ensure that dangerous sexual offenders would be identified and treated by mental health professionals (Petrunik, 1994). Once convicted of a designated sexual offence, the offender would be assessed by two psychiatrists, who would determine if the individual was ?dangerous?. A finding of sexual psychopathy would be accompanied by an indeterminate sentence, to be reviewed by the justice minister every three years for parole eligibility.

The term ?sexual psychopath? was very vague and not well defined in the legislation, lending uncertainty to the designation and making it difficult to meet the legal standard of proof ? beyond a reasonable doubt (McRuer, 1958, cited in Petrunik, 1994).  In 1960, the Dangerous Sexual Offender Act replaced the 1948 legislation and set out specific criteria for determining dangerousness including the offender?s criminal record and the circumstances of the current offence. Only one conviction for a designated sexual offence was necessary for a finding of dangerousness, and an application for a dangerousness hearing could be made up to three months post-release. A finding of dangerousness resulted in an indeterminate sentence that would be reviewed every three years.

In 1969 the report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections (Ouimet Report) found that the Habitual Offender and Dangerous Sexual Offender [statutes were] being applied erratically and ineffectively across the country. The Habitual Offender provisions were often used to indefinitely incarcerate repeat nuisance and property offenders and were not being reserved for those most dangerous to the public (Webster & Dickens, 1983) [while] the Dangerous Sexual Offender provisions were [often being] applied to those who had committed sexual offences but were not violent. On the other hand, some serious violent offenders who could be considered to be ?dangerous? on the basis of a demonstrated proclivity to commit a variety of serious personal injury offences were not being captured under either provision. The Ouimet Report did advise the continued use of clinical assessment and treatment for dangerous offenders, while the Law Commission of Canada disagreed and recommended against the use of indeterminate sentences and clinical assessments of dangerousness.

In 1977 new legislation was enacted, repealing both the Habitual Offender and Dangerous Sexual Offender Acts. The new Act was designed to be applicable to both sexual offenders and those who had committed violent acts of a non-sexual nature and provided for determinate or indeterminate sentences and parole eligibility after three years (Webster & Dickens, 1983).  The determination of dangerousness was to be made following conviction but prior to sentencing.  In 1988, legislation was put in place to allow the National Parole Board to detain offenders (who had not been designated as dangerous) past statutory release to the end of their sentence in the interests of public safety, if they felt that the individual was likely to re-offend in a violent or sexual manner.

In 1997, Bill C-55 was enacted, making significant changes to strengthen measures for dealing with the most serious offenders.  The Act  required the testimony of only one psychiatrist (rather than two) at a dangerousness hearing, lengthened the waiting period for parole eligibility to seven (rather than three) years, and rescinded the option of determinate sentences for offenders who had been declared dangerous.  The Act also created a second category of Long Term Offender, who would be subject to a determinate sentence followed by a post-release probationary period of up to ten years. Additionally, the Act extended the period in which application for a finding of dangerous may be made up to six month following the time of sentencing. Finally, of note, the 1997 legislation created a new category of judicial restraint (810.2) aimed at monitoring persons who are likely to commit a personal injury offence.
The 1997 legislation embodies the current provisions for addressing serious violent and sexual offenders.  Currently, any person convicted of a serious personal injury offence, but not yet sentenced who constitutes a danger to the life, safety, or mental/physical well-being of others may be subject to a dangerous offender application by the crown. The offence committed must be a violent offence that warrants a minimum 10 year sentence or a sexual offence as defined in sections 271 (sexual assault), 272 (sexual assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm) and 273 (aggravated sexual assault). The determination of dangerousness is to be based on evidence establishing: a pattern of unrestrained behaviour and/or, a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour and/or, any behaviour that is of such a brutal nature that it can be inferred that the offender?s future behaviour is unlikely to be inhibited by normal restraint (Section 753 (1)(a). Behaviour that exhibits a failure to control sexual impulses that leads to harm to others is also grounds for a finding of dangerousness. If an individual  convicted of an offence subject to a minimum two year sentence meets the above criteria for dangerousness but it is determined that that the risk he poses to the public can be managed through intensive monitoring and various probation conditions including participation in treatment he can be found to be a Long-Term offender. In this case, he will receive a determinate sentence of two years or more plus up to ten years of community supervision.
--- End quote ---

Crafty

Chris:
Hey AlbertaCowboy, were are you?? It's been a long time since you've been around.

babybear:
I remember when Candace disappeared. It was a sad day for all her friends. None of it made sense for such a young vibrant girl who was so much loved to disappeared. When the news of her disappearance came my parents didn't let me walk home from school by myself. To be frank what happened to Candace scared me beyond belief.
When the word of her killer being caught and arrested I had been working in a campaign office during our provincial elections. I came home that night and I was tired. I sat down and turned on the news. What I saw before me knocked the wind out, I was staring at an old photo of Candace. I felt like I had just seen a ghost. Then I caught the announcement that they were making on the news. Candace's killer had been caught. I fell to my knees and started to cry. I praised my Father in heaven for bringing an arrest.
   Thank you Mr. Dehn for your constant persistence in the news. Thank you to the Winnipeg police for your persistance also in finding Candace's killer. Now she can rest in peace.
  But please how did mark Edward Grant get released. This is the time we need the death penalty not just for him but every sexual predator who murders children. These children are supposed to be our future.
  I can't wait for this sicko's trial. I plan on attending when I can. I hope he rots in jail.

Chris:
Hi Babybear, thanks for joining.

So Candace was your friend? I am really sorry about your lose. It must have been a horrifying experience. I remember this case before he was arrested, it seemed to be rather cruel.

I am so glad too that the police went back and kept investigating. IT must have been a huge relief to everyone who knew her.

I have always been against the death penalty, but I am starting to be open to allowing it in special cases, especially murders of children. This was one of the saddest murders I ever read about.

I feel very confident that the police forces across Canada will be solving many old cases now with more funding, better training, and better technology. Cases like this help reinforce that it is important.

Again, thanks for joining.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page