91社区破解版

The ex-91社区破解版 resident is currently serving time in a Vancouver Island prison. He was convicted of manslaughter for using a pillow case to end Susan Klassen鈥檚 life on Nov. 2, 1995.

Susan鈥檚 sister, Brenda McDonald, 37, choked back tears this morning while reading the decision in her Alberta home. 鈥淚 think women should be absolutely appalled and terrified,鈥� she said. 鈥淵ou are a piece of property; you are a possession when you walk down the aisle. 鈥淚t鈥檚 unbelievable,鈥� said the Edmonton woman, who has launched a fight to change laws around spousal homicides since her sister鈥檚 death. More than 10,000 people have signed a petition in support, or logged onto a web site about Susan. Now, McDonald is bending the ear of the new federal justice minister, Anne McLellan. She will not give up. She wants the case to go to the Supreme Court of Canada next so evidence of Klassen鈥檚 past that was never used during the trial can be introduced.

鈥淪usan had every right to live.鈥� A month ago, a federal Crown argued in a Yukon court that Klassen鈥檚 sentence was too short and should be doubled. Federal Crown prosecutor David Frankel urged three justices to rethink the way spousal homicides are sentenced. In their final judgment, Chief Justice Allan McEachern, Justice David Hinds and Thomas Braidwood said: 鈥淎s it cannot be said that the sentence imposed in this case was demonstrably unfit, we have no alternative but to dismiss this appeal.鈥� In their written decision delivered today, the justices outlined the case and commented on the lack of any evidence of previous violence. 鈥淭he accused had no criminal record prior to this offence. Since his sentence, there has been some adverse publicity in the local media about the accused having some violent propensities, but no such evidence was presented in the trial.

鈥淐ertainly, there was no suggestion of violence in the many family victim impact statements provided to the court ...The Crown not having sought to introduce any such evidence, we are confined to the evidence actually presented at the trial.鈥� On May 28, the XStarX reported that a court document filed in Manitoba decades ago offered some insight into Klassen鈥檚 past. The July 1977 divorce petition says Klassen 鈥渢ried to choke鈥� his first wife, who eventually sought divorce on the ground of 鈥減hysical or mental cruelty.鈥� Susan鈥檚 family urged the Crown to introduce this new information at the appeal and update their victim impact statements, but say they faced a stone wall of refusal.

鈥淭his case was mishandled, and I want some answers,鈥� McDonald said this morning. A Vancouver federal Crown prosecutor said fresh evidence can be introduced at the appeal level, but the rules are strict. In an interview this morning Frankel said ,鈥淚t鈥檚 been done any number of times, but there are some statutory requirements. We took a decision not to.鈥� He said the case can still go to the Supreme Court of Canada. In court last month, Frankel had argued that the range of sentences for cases relating to spousal violence (from a suspended sentence to eight years) was inappropriate.

鈥淲e knew it was an uphill battle,鈥� he said this morning. In the justices鈥� final decision, they focused on the evidence around the pivotal moment before Klassen strangled his estranged wife. In court, Klassen said a disparaging remark was made about his low sperm count, and that there was some suggestion of his wife鈥檚 relationship with another man during their separation. 鈥淭he accused expected to have sex with his wife, but when he touched her, she said: 鈥榃hat鈥檚 the point; it鈥檚 dead sperm, anyways. Besides, you already know about Gord.鈥� 鈥�

For McDonald, these words are difficult to read. 鈥淗ow do they know ... 鈥� she asked, her voice cracking. 鈥淗e鈥檚 a killer and he鈥檚 not going to lie?鈥� In the reasons for the dismissal, the justices make it clear the incident which allegedly sparked Klassen鈥檚 rage was not an excuse for his actions. 鈥淲e mention these facts not to assign blame upon the deceased, but merely to explain the facts. There is nothing to suggest the deceased was responsible for her wholly unnecessary death.鈥� For Susan鈥檚 family, the words are hollow.

McDonald hung up today dreading the moment she tells Susan鈥檚 father about the decision. 鈥淪usan was not recognized in this courtroom. Her name was not even mentioned at the appeal,鈥� she said. 鈥淪he was called 鈥榟is wife鈥�... not 鈥榚stranged wife.鈥� 鈥� McDonald sees no justice. She only sees a man who killed, then tried to commit suicide by driving into a propane truck on the Mayo Road, for which he never faced any charges. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a very scary country we live in if men鈥檚 anger, simple anger, means if you kill somebody, it鈥檚 almost OK. It鈥檚 an accident because you were angry. You didn鈥檛 mean to do it.鈥�

Ralph Klassen鈥檚 鈥渄eep blind rage鈥� and lack of evidence about any previous violent outbursts were some of the reasons his prison sentence was not lengthened. After 30 days of considering the evidence, three B.C.-Yukon Appeal Court Justices decided that the 45-year-old man鈥檚 prison term was not 鈥渦nfit鈥�, despite calls for tougher sentencing for spouses who kill their partners.

Klassen, who was originally charged with second-degree murder, was tried by a judge and jury last January and found guilty of manslaughter for strangling his wife with a pillow case in the couple鈥檚 Lake Laberge home. By then, he had been in custody almost 15 months.

鈥淪o the sentence is really in excess of six years,鈥� Chief Justice Allan McEachern, Justice David Hinds and Justice Thomas Braidwood said in an eight-page decision released by the Yukon court services office today.

The document outlined the facts of the case and highlighted the fact that trial evidence did not support 鈥減rovocation鈥�, a defence often used for murder. Provocation is legally defined as a situation when victim provokes an accused, making him or her so intensely angry, 鈥�(they) may not contemplate the consequences of an act, and might not in fact intend to bring about those consequences,鈥� reads the decision.

In cases like this, it can be argued that the accused did not have the 鈥渋ntent鈥� needed to prove murder. The trial judge told jurors that the evidence in the Klassen case did not support 鈥減rovocation鈥�. Despite this, the jury returned a verdict of manslaughter instead of second-degree murder. In their decision, the B.C.-Yukon Appeal justices pointed out that, despite the fact that provocation was disallowed by the judge, the Klassen verdict was not appealed.

In an 鈥渦nusual鈥� move, the federal Crown only appealed the sentence after a public outcry about the case. During the appeal, federal Crown prosecutor David Frankel told court that Klassen did intend to assault his wife, and the only defence he had for her death was his rage.

鈥淗e intended to assault her when he put his hands around her throat and squeezed the life out of her ... He was so blinded by rage that he took a life,鈥� he said last month.

Frankel wanted a longer sentence. He asked the appeal court to ignore precedents, which he felt went too easy on men who killed their spouses. He raised concerns about other manslaughter cases which he said do not properly reflect societal concerns, yet stand as bench marks to determine sentencing ranges.

On May 27, he told court, 鈥淲e are here to determine whether a (this sentence) is an appropriate and fitting one when a 36-year-old victim is brutally strangled in her own home and her own bed,鈥� he said. Klassen can apply for day parole in March 1998, and vie for full parole by September 1998.

Despite arguments to toughen his sentence, a panel of legal minds pointed to the mitigating circumstances which arose during Klassen鈥檚 trial 鈥� the accused pleaded guilty, there was no evidence of prior violence, the jury found no intent to kill and the trial judge said Klassen showed deep remorse by trying to commit suicide (by drving 鈥渉ead-first鈥� into a propane truck) the day he strangled his wife.

鈥淎n examination of comparable cases suggests a sentence of five years for this offence is within the usual range,鈥� the document released today states. It points to similar cases where moves to lengthen sentences lost upon appeal. 鈥淚n a number of recent cases, the Supreme Court of Canada has authoritatively stated that Appeal Courts should be very slow to interfere with sentences imposed by trial judges.鈥�

By YVETTE鈥圔REND Star Reporter