 |
| Norman Douglas |
We tend to ignore the fact that the families of the victims of the serial killer, sex deviant killer, child killer and hostage-taker killer all serve life sentences with no chance of parole.
The best (saddest) example I can offer for my opinion is my experience on Thurs., Nov. 21. (I am writing this on Nov. 22).
Yesterday, three people at the Joyceville Correctional Centre asked the Parole Board for some relief. Only one got his wish.
Russell Colwell joyfully walked the few steps back to his apartment. The other two, Carmela Roznik and Tiziana Palumbo, took a long, sad trip by cab, train and plane back to Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.
The hearing room could not have accommodated more than the 13 people present. I was one of them.
So was the killer, who 37 years ago had brutally knifed to death, while masturbating on, a 14-year-old Grade 9 student who simply had gone into the school washroom at the wrong time.
I sat three feet behind him — within striking distance, you might say.
But fulfilling that urge would not have been appropriate. I was the Crown attorney who had prosecuted him.
And at the end of the 90 minutes that the hearing took, I was left with the feeling that I had fallen down a rabbit hole and entered a strange world.
I was startled.
There was virtually no security. The atmosphere was relaxed. Everyone was nice. There were two parole board members who would make the decision. One spoke to Colwell like a kindly grandfather. The other said little but she seemed nice, too.
Russell’s parole officer and his lawyer were both pleasant. The regional communications officer was there to kindly assist the family victims, and she was genuinely caring. Even the unarmed correctional officer sitting in the corner smiled often.
It was the Land of Nice.
That’s why four of us didn’t fit.
I watched Colwell the whole time. He is 56, slight build, a full head of hair trimmed neatly, soft-spoken, meek looking. For those of you old enough to remember another bathroom knifing, think Norman Bates. I listened carefully to everything he said. I thought it was an act.
And neither Carmela nor Tiziana were “nice.”
When Carmela stood to read her heart-wrenching statement, she deliberately took two steps to be directly beside Colwell. The grandfatherly board member asked her to step back. She did, but she gave no quarter in her remarks to the man who killed her little sister, Patrizia Mastroianni.
And Tiziana let him have it too. They are warriors. This is the fourth time they have had to endure his applications for parole, but there is no quit in either of them.
They pleaded with the board not to add to their anguish by letting Colwell off the prison grounds even for the escorted day pass he was seeking.
The only solace they have in this nightmare is the knowledge that he will never be free again, just as they are never free from their sentence.
The board members took about six minutes to deliberate before calling us all back in to announce their decision. And they did not even explain it. Simply, after thanking everyone for their participation, Colwell will be allowed off the prison grounds for a one-day escorted pass to spend the day in Kingston. That ends the hearing. Thank you all for coming.
I tried to encourage the sisters that they should not feel defeated — they did everything they could. I told them that two worlds collided: their world, where their pain and the enormity of the crime should itself be enough to keep Colwell behind bars, and the parole board world, where Colwell should be given gradual reintegration into the community.
Here is what happened, and why.
The criteria used in decision-making for escorted temporary absences has four parts:
- the inmate will not, by reoffending, present an undue risk to society;
- it is desirable for the inmate to be absent from the penitentiary for … rehabilitative purposes or compassionate reasons;
- the inmate’s behaviour while under sentence does not preclude authorizing the absence; and
- a structured plan for the absence has been prepared.
Note particularly the language “undue risk” and “it is desirable.” And note that none of the criteria include the victims’ heartache or the horrific nature of the crime committed.
So naturally the damage done to the whole family and their suffering (the victim statements read into the record) really had no impact on the mandate of the board.
“It is desirable” begs the question: Desirable for whom? The hearing presupposes that the offender should be gradually rehabilitated back into the community.
The cards were stacked against the two sisters from the beginning.
But here is the Achilles’ heel of the parole system. Here is where the sisters have hope.
Undue risk. The duty of the board is to consider whether Colwell is a risk to the community. And his background, his behaviour and the test scores in his file, in my view at least, show the board was wrong on Thursday. And if enough people agree, then the Mastroianni family still has hope.
He has been tested by psychologists and psychiatrists throughout his prison term. The results?
- He is a low to moderate risk of reoffending.
- His SIR (Statistical Information on Recidivism) score indicates that he fits the category where four out of five offenders will not commit an indictable (serious) offence after release.
The board used those results to conclude that Colwell, therefore, is a good bet not to reoffend.
My response is: What??? His crime was that of a sexual deviant, a predator, a stalker, a premeditated merciless psychopath. The bar for him, if there is to be any slim chance of parole, should be no risk to reoffend, and he should be in a category of five out of five offenders. Because who loses if the board bets wrong?
Ask the family of Celia Ruygrok, the 21-year-old young woman murdered by another infamous Saultite, Allan Sweeney, released on parole for a murder 10 years earlier as a “safe” bet.
The common sense world that clashed with the rabbit hole world on Thursday would change the word “undue” risk to “no” risk. And it wouldn’t consider an 80 per cent chance of not reoffending a “safe” bet.
And what of his history while serving his sentence?
His alarming treatment of female staff. Locking himself in a women’s washroom, thereby losing his cleaner’s job. These are a few of those red flags in his file.
I was allowed to be at the hearing this week as a support person to the victims Carmela and Tiziana. I, therefore, was an “observer.”
Observers are not allowed to speak.
But I can speak through my computer now that I am home from a very long drive. And I can speak through Law360 Canada.
Norman Douglas is a retired criminal court judge with 27.5 years of experience on the bench. His book, You Be the Judge, was published in December 2023.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.