Homeless killer John Paul Ostamas' sentence too harsh, law prof says
'This means we're going to be filling prisons with old men serving huge sentences. Do we want that?'
The severe sentence handed to Winnipeg serial killer John Paul Ostamas this week has a legal expert concerned it's too harsh and could be a violation of constitutional rights.
Ostamas, 40, was sentenced Monday to life in prison with no parole eligibility for 75 years for the 2015 killings of three homeless men on the streets of Winnipeg — 25 years for each count of second-degree murder.
Canada's sentencing laws are designed to consider deterrence and denunciation of the most extreme kinds of acts, such as those committed by Ostamas, but our legal system is also "based on the idea of hope … the idea that there is some ability for people to change," said Debra Parkes, an associate professor of law at the University of Manitoba.
"Also, murder has been shown to be the kind of crime that is very hard to deter with punishment.
"This sentence does little to accomplish either of those goals."
Miles Monias, 37, Stony Stanley Bushie, 48, and Donald Collins, 65, were viciously attacked in April 2015. Ostamas was arrested a few days later and pleaded guilty in court last month.
Parkes called the killings "horrific" but at the same time noted that Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms still applies, "and we need to be considering that."
As well, despite receiving last-minute word that Ostamas had been diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2002, the Crown prosecutor and defence attorney proceeded with their joint sentencing recommendation. There was no call for a psychiatric assessment, which can even be ordered by the judge, Parkes said.
"The fact that we have unprecedented sentences in our law, going without any consideration of the charter, I think that's something that raises some concerns," Parkes said.
Ostamas's sentence is the longest anyone has been made ineligible for parole in Manitoba and matches the longest in Canadian history. The first 75-year term handed down was to Justin Bourque, who was found guilty of three counts of first-degree murder and two counts of attempted murder for killing three RCMP officers in New Brunswick in 2014.
Prominent Quebec defence lawyer Jean-Claude Hébert criticized Bourque's lawyer for not fighting the case more aggressively, either by exploring Bourque's mental state at the time of the murders or challenging the constitutionality of the sentencing law.
- Justin Bourque's case prompts debate over lengthy prison terms
- Justin Bourque's lawyer David Lutz defends handling of case
Increasing parole ineligibility beyond 25 years was made possible after changes to the Criminal Code in 2011.
Prior to those changes, the longest parole eligibility for murder was 25 years, no matter how many murders were committed. Each sentence was served concurrently, which means at the same time.
That was considered among the harshest in the world because it didn't mean someone would automatically be released from prison after 25 years — only that they could seek parole.
Those sentences were brought in after the death penalty was abolished in Canada in the mid-1970s. A faint hope clause, which allowed a person to apply to a jury to consider parole after 15 years, was also added.
The Conservative government under Stephen Harper, however, removed the clause and ordered sentences in cases of multiple murders to be served consecutively (one after the other).
"This is a significant change in our law and it's now been meted out in at least two cases with no charter or constitutional consideration," Parkes said, adding it's only a matter of time before those kinds of sentences — like many of the Harper era justice reforms — are challenged in court as unconstitutional.
When Canada first introduced sentences of no parole for 25 years, it was challenged in court and just barely stood up, Parkes noted.