Pubdate: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 Source: Red Deer Advocate (CN AB) Copyright: 2007 Red Deer Advocate Contact: http://www.reddeeradvocate.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2492 Author: Greg Neiman CRIME AND TWO PUNISHMENTS The philosopher Confucius wrote it hundreds of years ago: if you are setting out to take revenge, first dig two graves. Kim Walker may or may not have had revenge on his mind when he gunned down his daughter's boyfriend, but when he put James Hayward in a grave back in 2003, he certainly was digging a grave for himself. Because the jury convicted him of second-degree murder last week, the judge had no choice but to sentence him to life in prison, although with the opportunity for parole after 10 years have been served. It's the minimum allowable sentence. Walker felt he was protecting his daughter from a drug addict's life, which generally becomes an existence of unrelenting misery ending in an early death. His solution was to get rid of her drug-dealing, drug-using boyfriend. Outside the Yorkton, Sask., courthouse following the conviction and sentencing, Walker's daughter Jadah declared her father a hero. "He saved my life," she said. "He did what he had to do." If being a good parent just means being willing to sacrifice your own life for your family, Kim Walker surely passes the test. He'll come out of jail an old man, even with the minimum sentence. On the question of whether he "did what he had to do," obviously the law disagrees with the Walker family. For many Canadians who have followed news reports of the trial, what makes this particular story so tragic is the law's interpretation of Kim Walker's act of violence, compared with the almost casual violence that we read about every day. The day after newspapers carried the story of Walker's conviction and sentencing, and while Jadah was telling reporters that her father saved her life, in Grande Prairie, Stephen Curtis Smith was being convicted for bludgeoning his girlfriend to death with a tire iron. Drugs, alcohol and an extended argument led to the horrible early death of Bonnie May Weir, at the hands of a man whom even the defence council admitted had been a drug user and drug dealer since his teens. "This is a classical drug- and alcohol-induced scenario," said defence lawyer David Abbey. Smith has struggled through life and had been addicted to drugs since he was a teen, Abbey said. He sold drugs to support his habit. But as we invariably hear about addicts facing serious jail time, Smith, 30, has tried to turn his life around. His lawyer pleaded: "He is not an individual we should be throwing away. He is an individual with promise." Thus, with credit for the time already spent in custody, Smith's seven-year sentence -- not for second-degree murder, but merely for manslaughter -- has only four years left on it. Parents, court observers and, no doubt, not a few drug dealers have to notice a discrepancy here, even if the courts don't. "The death of Ms. Wier is an example of the ultimate act of cruelty - -- the ending of a life before its time," Justice G.W. Paul said during Smith's sentencing hearing on Friday. No ending more cruel than being bashed to death with a tire iron, except perhaps being shot five times, in the eyes of the law. Who suffered more in the ultimate cruelty of their deaths? Ultimately, it doesn't matter. What was in the heart of the killers seems to be more of the deciding factor in whether an early death is worthy of life in prison or merely seven years. Smith, the lifetime drug addict and drug dealer for many years, could kill in blind rage with less culpability than the father who (at least in his own heart) could find no other recourse to save his daughter from the clutches of the kind of person who drug dealers become. Blind rage is deplorable, but a calculated decision to kill is worse. All lives are valuable, but the law is valued above any individual person; you cannot take the law into your own hands. If you think you can, first dig two graves. Greg Neiman is an Advocate editor. - --- MAP posted-by: Elaine