Jump to content

Is this right?


Recommended Posts

Local police posted this bulletin to the public,along with the man's picture. I can't seem to wrap my head around whether I think it's right,or wrong, that they did so.

In the interest of community safety and pursuant to Ontario Regulation 265/98, under the Police Services Act, Chief Frechette, Barrie Police Service discloses the following information re: the release of High Profile Offender - Vincent Walkem who now resides in Barrie.

, age 32 was released on full parole from Pittsburg Institution where he was serving a federal sentence of four years and eight months for conviction of two counts of Aggravated Sexual Assault. These two offences occurred in 2001/2002 and 2004 in the City of Toronto. WALKEM, who is Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) positive, had deliberate, unprotected sex with two female partners that he was having an intimate relationship with during those time periods. However, he lied and neglected to inform either of the two female victims about his positive HIV status.

Parolee Vincent WALKEM is now a resident of Barrie. He is required to report to his Barrie Parole Officer once a week and to Barrie Police Service once a month and is bound by conditions as set out by the Parole Board until his warrant expiry on September 18th, 2011. Conditions imposed include;

- follow a treatment plan and counseling re: psychological, personal/emotional, reintegration, sex offender maintenance, substance abuse.

- immediately disclose to parole supervisor all intimate relationships with females

- not to enter into any establishment where the primary source of income is derived from the sale of alcohol

- abstain from the use, purchase, possession or consumption of alcohol

- no direct or indirect contact with victims

Vincent WALKEM is described as a white male, height 193 cm, weight 84 kg, blue eyes, brown hair, and tattoos on right upper arm and left arm.

For further information in relation to this press release please contact:

Sgt Dave Goodbrand

(705) 717-3033

Copyright ©2008 Barrie Police Service

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure this is right...this creep has sexual relations with persons as an HIV positive individual and did NOT disclose to his partners that he was HIV positive...contracting HIV/AIDS would be a major change in persons lives and one that could COST them their lives...he is a terror to unsuspecting victims...

Gawpo Giggles :D:D:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was legislation passed a few years ago (2004-ish) requiring adult sex-offender to register with the National Sex Offender Registry (regardless of their health status, ie HIV etc.). I believe that local authorities can (or must) notify the public when a member of the NSOR is residing in their community.

But you were asking is it right or wrong.

I don't think it would be right for persons convicted of any crime to have their name and location publicized but I loose a lot of sympathy when it comes to sex offenders. I don't loose ALL sympathy b/c I feel many sexual offenders face mental health issues that are beyond their control. Thatbeingsaid protecting the community from re-offences is key.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

im under the impression that part of his probation would be an understanding that his whereabouts can be publicized. if i lived in the area with family and friends, i would appreciate being told we were at risk and being given the specifics.

the jane doe case in TO a decade ago underscores the importance of the public being warned about sex offenders in the area. in that case, the police did not warn locals about a serial rapist and a subsequent rape victim sued police for failure to notify.

the police have a responsibility to let the public know if a threat exists and in the barrie case, the rights of society outweight those of the convicted sex offender.

i would not castrate him, although if he had attacked someone i love, i'd be tempted to do more than just that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's legal...I just don't know that I think the violation of this man's privacy is merited by the crime he actually committed.

It is the particular nature of this man's crime that bothers me.

He isn't out there raping people or molesting children..the danger isn't of a violent attack (I realize that you could say his crime was a violent attack on someones' well being).

He was convicted of having unprotected consensual sex..but not informing the other person that he had HIV.I suppose in some ways that throws it back to being nonconsensual.But I think the danger here is the same danger anybody faces when having unprotected sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was convicted of having unprotected consensual sex..but not informing the other person that he had HIV.I suppose in some ways that throws it back to being nonconsensual.But I think the danger here is the same danger anybody faces when having unprotected sex.

Naturally, people shouldn't be having unprotected sex. But the comparison you're making is similar to saying that the risk someone takes when getting into a car being driven by a drunk is the same as the risk being taken by getting into a car. Both could end up with fatal consequences, but you'd be a lot less likely to get into a car if you knew the driver was drunk. Certainly you're rolling the dice by having unprotected sex, but not knowing that you are rolling loaded dice is a different proposition all together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...