[Snowyman]

Surely, if either of these additional victims of Holmolka's were members of your family you'd be demanding that she face specific charges for her crimes against them and not raising the apparently quasi-liberarian claim that doing so would make her some sort of victim of state harassment.

Part of the deal, from your link, "Prosecutors gave Homolka immunity from prosecution in Jane Doe's rape on the eve of Homolka giving testimony at Bernardo's 1995 murder trial."

The deal did not include additional penalties or restrictions . Pile them on and there are those who will eventually label her a victim of government harassment . Quasi-liberarian , whatever, label it as you choose , it will happen.

[GMMAC]

Reading on from the same article:

"The Galligan report said Jane Doe did not want Homolka charged, citing her need to get on with her shattered life.
When asked about those comments, Jane Doe said she was never interviewed or consulted for Galligan's report.
"Galligan? I don't even know (who) that is," she said.
If Jane Doe's assertion is correct, Galligan's report could be viewed as fundamentally flawed."

Two Points:
1. There is no basis in law for the Crown to arbitrarily waive any fundamental rights of "Jane Doe" or anyone else ... it's simply that the elite radical feminists who run the AG's office wrongly believe that their cherished principle of all women - including Karla - being imagined societal "victims" trumps those of Holmolka's legitimate victims.
2. Your supposition is entirely reversed: radical feminism has spent over a decade trying to paint Holmulka as a victim - a lie which has gradually progressed from many members of the public shaking their heads in semi-mute disbelief to now full blown outrage on the part of the vast majority of citizens.