Why would anyone object to a cold-blooded killer, who got a very light sentence only because she agreed to rat out another killer, being carefully monitored upon her release from prison? Who would be harmed by that?
I mean, THEY can't be brought back but they diserve justice.
Dunno 'bout Canada, but here in the US your legal standing is either innocent or guilty. Either you've paid your debt to society and you're off the hook, or you haven't and you're not...and that's the way it should be.
The big exception is that we've started doing Big-Brother-type surveillance on released sex offenders. I think that's wrong. If we're not going to let them actually be free, we should just keep 'em in jail. Better yet, give 'em a death sentence. Because if they're not "reformed" enough to turn 'em loose completely, they're not reformed enough to let out of jail period.
Once we invent this quasi-legal status of your-debt-is-paid-but-we're-keeping-tabs-on-you, you can apply it to anyone. Who's going to own the list of categories of people who get watched? What keeps us from putting most anyone under surveillance?
Who would be harmed? Us. By the precedent it sets.
She did what the Court ordered her to do. Her sentencing should be done with. If the Court wanted to add on a lifetime sentence of parole then it certainly had the opportunity to do so at the trial.
It ticks me off when I see any officials who think they have the right to say "Oops, we should have done this" and then add it on.
That's like when the legislators try to inch their way to a final goal. Come right out and say we are going to ban all weapons forever instead of this registration first crappola.