Looking at the math, either I’m missing something about the recent release date of accused serial killer Shawn Lamb, or we need to seriously re-examine the early-release provisions regarding career criminals.
Today, Lamb is facing three second-degree murder charges in connection to the deaths of:
Tanya Nepinak (on Sept. 13, 2011)
Carolyn Sinclair (Dec. 18, 2011)
Lorna Blacksmith (Jan. 11, 2012)
On May 26, 2010, Lamb was sentenced by Judge Linda Giesbrecht (now retired) to the following after admitting guilt to 16 charges, including two violent robberies of innocent people.
27 months at double credit (his charges pre-dated the legislative amendment forbidding granting this to him) for time served on the robberies.
PLUS 19 months going forward of real jail for possession of property obtained by crime and forgery and theft, fraud and utter forged documents.
ONLY after this period of jail was served would the many months remaining on a Conditional Sentence he was given in Jan. 2009 for attempted robbery then begin to resume (to be followed by three years of supervised probation — court heard the sentence handed down in May 2010 would ultimately mean he’d be supervised in various forms for six years).
The Crown attorney was very specific in how she wanted the sentence structured.
If he was sentenced to 19 months real jail, that takes us to December 2011 before that in-custody period expired.
Looking at the offence dates police say the women were killed, that raises an issue. It would appear, on the surface, that Lamb was released many months prior to when he was supposed to be from a provincial jail.
I can accept in some cases early-release provisions apply for both federal and provincial inmates.
But in Lamb’s case, I can’t. This is an accused person with more than 100 prior convictions, many of them for violent acts and court order breaches — along with parole and statutory release violations.
How it was determined that he be granted early release — given his prior history — needs to be examined in detail.