QuoteJudge sentences Travis Baumgartner to life in prison with no chance of parole for 40 years
BY RYAN CORMIER, MARIAM IBRAHIM AND PAULA SIMONS, EDMONTON JOURNAL SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
EDMONTON - In an unprecedented decision, triple-murderer Travis Baumgartner was sentenced Wednesday to life in prison with no chance of parole for 40 years, the harshest sentence handed down in Canada since execution was abolished in 1962.
Baumgartner, 22, will be 61 years old in 2052 when he can first apply for parole.
After reading a three-hour sentencing decision, Associate Chief Justice John Rooke told the crowded courtroom he had accepted a joint sentencing submission from prosecutors and Baumgartner's defence lawyer.
After being ordered to stand to receive sentence, the hulking Baumgartner stood with his arms crossed and the same disinterested look on his face he had throughout court proceedings. He showed no sign that receiving the longest prison sentence without chance of parole in Canada's history bothered him in the least.
Immediately after, Baumgartner was escorted from court by the three provincial sheriffs that surrounded the prisoner's box. He did not glance at the courtroom gallery filled with friends and family of the three co-workers he killed and the fourth that he disabled for life in an ambush and robbery in June 2012.
Baumgartner, a trainee armed guard with G4S Cash Solutions, gunned down his four co-workers, killing Michelle Shegelski, Edgardo Rejano and Brian Ilesic, and leaving a fourth, Matthew Schuman, with serious brain injuries.
Baumgartner is the first multiple murderer sentenced under a new law which allows judges to order that sentences be served consecutively rather than concurrently. The Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murderers Act came into effect in late 2011.
"The message that Parliament sent unanimously to the court has obviously been heard loud and clear," chief Crown prosecutor Steven Bilodeau said outside court.
Rooke pulled no punches as he began his decision. "These were assassinations and executions carried out by a cold-blooded killer with no respect for human life, all for the simple motive of robbery. These are some of the most horrendous crimes anyone can imagine. It's difficult to describe the revulsion of society, this court and the public."
Rooke called Baumgartner's killings "an ambush" and "cowardly."
Baumgartner is a "pariah of human life," Rooke said, asking rhetorically: "What was he possibly thinking?"
Baumgartner raised an eyebrow at Rooke's rhetorical question, but otherwise remained unmoved. He stretched his tall frame in the prisoner's box, leaned back and mostly kept his eyes closed.
In delivering the sentence, Rooke told the courtroom that he believes the maximum sentence under the new law — 75 years without parole — should be reserved for the worst killers, such as Robert Pickton or Clifford Olson.
He said there is a need for restraint to avoid a "crushing" sentence to give Baumgartner some hope of freedom and deter him from committing further crimes in prison.
Rooke said Baumgartner's crime also harmed the community. He said that apart from his guilty pleas, Baumgartner has not accepted responsibility. He noted that a letter of remorse from Baumgartner that was mentioned in the agreed statement of facts was not a part of the court record. Baumgartner did not address the court when given the chance to do so on Monday.
In a rare move, Rooke read lengthy portions of a few of the 24 victim impact statements, which he said reveal the "heartbreak, sorrow and grief" left behind. He also said it required a "strong stomach' to read them aloud.
Rooke said the joint submission from Crown and defence lawyers listed three mitigating factors: Baumgartner's age, his lack of a previous criminal record and his guilty pleas. He also noted 10 aggravating factors, the most important of which was Baumgartner's "treacherous breach of trust," when he shot his co-workers in the head while he was supposed to be watching their backs.
"The depth of the betrayal is remarkable," Bilodeau told the court earlier this week. "It is aggravating that his victims were vulnerable even though they were armed themselves. They were completely exposed."
The judge agreed with Bilodeau that Baumgartner clearly planned the robbery and when the time came, he chose to kill. He fled the scene, tried to avoid detection and when he was caught, made up a "preposterous and long charade," claiming he had amnesia.
The severe prison sentence was possible because of a new law that allows judges to decide that a convicted multiple-murderer must serve consecutive sentences before being allowed to apply for parole. Previously, sentences were served concurrently.
As noted by Rooke and defence lawyer Peter Royal, it is unlikely Baumgartner will ever be granted parole. Bilodeau mused openly in court that Baumgartner might not survive 40 years in prison.
The details of the murders were spelled out in a 15-page agreed statement of facts read Monday after Baumgartner pleaded guilty to the attempted murder of Schuman, to two counts of second-degree murder for killing Shegelski and Ilesic, and to one count of first-degree murder for killing Rejano. The first-degree murder conviction in Rejano's death was supported by evidence Baumgartner planned that killing outside the HUB Mall after shooting the other three.
According to the statement of facts, Baumgartner shot his co-workers point-blank as they worked a night shift delivering cash to bank machines.
"They had no chance," Rooke said of the victims. "We know how it happened. It happened by surprise and shock. It was an ambush."
Baumgartner, who had worked for G4S Cash Solutions for two months, had argued with his mother about rent money earlier in the day. At the time, he owed about $58,000 for his recently purchased Ford F-150 truck and had 26 cents in his bank account.
After the robbery, he left cash for two friends in Sherwood Park and dropped $64,000 on his mom's kitchen table.
After a two-day manhunt, he was arrested while trying to cross the border into Lynden, Wash. He had $333,580 in cash in a backpack when he was captured.
Days after the killings, in a confession to an undercover RCMP officer in his B.C. jail cell, Baumgartner said: "I did it all. I killed those people and robbed their truck."
As part of his sentence, Baumgartner is now banned from owning guns for the rest of his life.
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Mall+shootings+Travis+Baumgartner+sentenced+years+prison/8897515/story.html
There was an enormous scrum outside the courthouse yesterday - biggest I've ever seen, after this was handed out.
Curious what Americans (and Euros) think of this sentence. Too harsh? Too lenient?
No guns in prison? Cruel and unusual.
Quote from: Barrister on September 12, 2013, 12:45:12 PM
Quote
As part of his sentence, Baumgartner is now banned from owning guns for the rest of his life.
Curious what Americans (and Euros) think of this sentence. Too harsh? Too lenient?
That last sentence is what makes it too harsh.
Quote from: lustindarkness on September 12, 2013, 12:57:10 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 12, 2013, 12:45:12 PM
Quote
As part of his sentence, Baumgartner is now banned from owning guns for the rest of his life.
Curious what Americans (and Euros) think of this sentence. Too harsh? Too lenient?
That last sentence is what makes it too harsh.
The man gunned down his 4 partners in cold blood. I think it's safe to say he shouldn't own any guns, ever.
Barbarians.
MAH RAHTS
Too lenient. Shouldn't have any parole but it suffices as he may never be let out, but depends what a future parole board will decide. The US does similar at times. I think Manson still comes up for parole, but he's always turned down. But I don't see why this sentence should be considered too harsh at all.
Quote from: Barrister on September 12, 2013, 12:58:22 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on September 12, 2013, 12:57:10 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 12, 2013, 12:45:12 PM
Quote
As part of his sentence, Baumgartner is now banned from owning guns for the rest of his life.
Curious what Americans (and Euros) think of this sentence. Too harsh? Too lenient?
That last sentence is what makes it too harsh.
The man gunned down his 4 partners in cold blood. I think it's safe to say he shouldn't own any guns, ever.
If the purpose of prison is rehabilitation, how can you say he is rehabilitated if he isn't even allowed to defend himself from attack from skittles wielding maniacs?
You know, for example?
Seems like a perfectly-reasonable sentence to me.
Quote from: Barrister on September 12, 2013, 12:58:22 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on September 12, 2013, 12:57:10 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 12, 2013, 12:45:12 PM
Quote
As part of his sentence, Baumgartner is now banned from owning guns for the rest of his life.
Curious what Americans (and Euros) think of this sentence. Too harsh? Too lenient?
That last sentence is what makes it too harsh.
The man gunned down his 4 partners in cold blood. I think it's safe to say he shouldn't own any guns, ever.
I think that the gun nuts will argue that he was just executing his right to self-defence when he shot those people.
Personally, I would have seen him hanged by the neck.
I'm OK with the sentence, mostly because of how old he'll be when he becomes eligible.
Best law the Harper gov passed.
Quote from: Neil on September 12, 2013, 01:55:49 PM
Personally, I would have seen him hanged by the neck.
Concur, but more forcefully.
It's a filthy contradiction of our society that we "value life" so much that we prefer to make it unbearably awful for 40 years instead of mercifully ending it.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2013, 02:15:28 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 12, 2013, 01:55:49 PM
Personally, I would have seen him hanged by the neck.
Concur, but more forcefully.
It's a filthy contradiction of our society that we "value life" so much that we prefer to make it unbearably awful for 40 years instead of mercifully ending it.
Ariel Castro notwithstanding, most of the men on death row are pretty vocal about preferring not to be dead...
So when is that bus-decapitator cannibal getting released?
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 12, 2013, 05:05:46 PM
So when is that bus-decapitator cannibal getting released?
He's gotten some day-passes already IIRC. He probably qualifies for full supervised release but for the politics of it.
Quote from: Neil on September 12, 2013, 01:55:49 PM
Personally, I would have seen him hanged by the neck.
Don't think people will be surprised that that's my opinion as well.
Quote from: Barrister on September 12, 2013, 02:46:41 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2013, 02:15:28 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 12, 2013, 01:55:49 PM
Personally, I would have seen him hanged by the neck.
Concur, but more forcefully.
It's a filthy contradiction of our society that we "value life" so much that we prefer to make it unbearably awful for 40 years instead of mercifully ending it.
Ariel Castro notwithstanding, most of the men on death row are pretty vocal about preferring not to be dead...
That's a biological imperative talking. Why listen to the words of cowards?
I also propound the argument that life imprisonment is a bad use of societal resources.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2013, 07:51:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 12, 2013, 02:46:41 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2013, 02:15:28 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 12, 2013, 01:55:49 PM
Personally, I would have seen him hanged by the neck.
Concur, but more forcefully.
It's a filthy contradiction of our society that we "value life" so much that we prefer to make it unbearably awful for 40 years instead of mercifully ending it.
Ariel Castro notwithstanding, most of the men on death row are pretty vocal about preferring not to be dead...
That's a biological imperative talking. Why listen to the words of cowards?
I also propound the argument that life imprisonment is a bad use of societal resources.
In wanting to "not die", surely we all are cowards...
On balance, I am in favour of the death penalty. I just find it surprising how easily some people favour it.
Quote from: Barrister on September 12, 2013, 12:45:12 PM
Curious what Americans (and Euros) think of this sentence. Too harsh? Too lenient?
A life sentence for murder is pretty usual, so why should anybody think it too harsh or too lenient? The 40 year wait until the first parole hearing is peculiar, but I found the concept of serving consecutively instead of concurrently more interesting. We used to have that but abolished it decades ago.
Quote from: Zanza on September 13, 2013, 01:35:28 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 12, 2013, 12:45:12 PM
Curious what Americans (and Euros) think of this sentence. Too harsh? Too lenient?
A life sentence for murder is pretty usual, so why should anybody think it too harsh or too lenient? The 40 year wait until the first parole hearing is peculiar, but I found the concept of serving consecutively instead of concurrently more interesting. We used to have that but abolished it decades ago.
Canadian Life sentence is usually, and was never over, 25 years before first parole hearing.
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 12, 2013, 05:05:46 PM
So when is that bus-decapitator cannibal getting released?
Wasn't he found not guilty by reason of insanity? Can't remember now.
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2013, 08:19:50 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 12, 2013, 05:05:46 PM
So when is that bus-decapitator cannibal getting released?
Wasn't he found not guilty by reason of insanity? Can't remember now.
Yes. Finding of Not Criminally Responsible by reason of Mental Defect (NCRMD to those of us in the biz).
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2013, 09:00:52 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2013, 08:19:50 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 12, 2013, 05:05:46 PM
So when is that bus-decapitator cannibal getting released?
Wasn't he found not guilty by reason of insanity? Can't remember now.
Yes. Finding of Not Criminally Responsible by reason of Mental Defect (NCRMD to those of us in the biz).
Presumably, if they cure his "mental defect" or control it with drugs, he could walk free ... ? Not sure how this works. I assume he has to go before some sort of formal assessment.
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2013, 09:07:04 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2013, 09:00:52 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2013, 08:19:50 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 12, 2013, 05:05:46 PM
So when is that bus-decapitator cannibal getting released?
Wasn't he found not guilty by reason of insanity? Can't remember now.
Yes. Finding of Not Criminally Responsible by reason of Mental Defect (NCRMD to those of us in the biz).
Presumably, if they cure his "mental defect" or control it with drugs, he could walk free ... ? Not sure how this works. I assume he has to go before some sort of formal assessment.
Yeah. Vince Li (the guy's name) was sent to a forensic psychiatric hospital in Manitoba, where he remains to this day. He was suffering from severe untreated schizophrenia and has responded very well to treatment (and feels horrified about what happened). As I said, but for the high profile of the case he probably would have been released by now.
People are never that comfortable with the real psych cases. Around here a guy about 15 years ago walked into a fast food place where two teenagers were working, and stabbed them to death. When they police arrived he was incoherent and after lengthy evaluations it was pretty much determined he was completely psychotic and had no concept of what he was doing. So he was not found guilty and was diverted to the mental health system. A few years later some locals saw him out at a local place getting ice cream or something, he was out on supervised day release (where basically you can go into town, but you have a keeper that's with you the whole time) and the local community was outraged. But really, if the guy legitimately had no concept of right and wrong (as a court and medical experts found), and his doctors feel he's safe to be on supervised day release I don't really see where the outrage is. The whole point of recognizing diminished or lack of capacity for such things is to not punish someone for something they lacked the faculties to really make a decision about.
Reagan's would be assassin was widely considered well enough to be released but for the fact he had shot a President. Although all the experts approved him being released into his parents custody for brief outings in 1999, and longer weekend furloughs a few years later (around the time Reagan died, coincidentally), he actually snuck some photos or something of Jodie Foster back into the hospital with him after one of those trips suggesting he probably wasn't quite as well adjusted as his doctors claimed. But a few years after that I think he's now basically a "half time" mental patient who gets like 120 days a year out of the hospital and even has a driver's license.