Karla Homolka, Media Superstar

Karla Homolka has been getting an enormous amount of media attention lately. I’m not convinced that all this attention is in the best interest of society and I don’t think it’s fair to the families of her victims, either.

Homolka served a paltry 12 years for her crimes because of an often-criticized deal where she agreed to testify against Bernardo. Her light punishment has led to two things, I think: first, many feel as though justice was not served, and second, it’s easy for many others to get the impression that her crimes weren’t really all that severe.

The idea that justice wasn’t served has led many in the media to seek revenge by ensuring that she cannot escape the wrathful public eye. Large groups of reporters milled around the prison yesterday in the hopes of getting that precious first shot of Homolka’s first taste of freedom, and she’s been the subject of plenty of vociferous attacks in the press.

As an attempt to make things difficult for Homolka, however, I think this strategy is backfiring. Her lawyers are making the case that this treatment is unfair, that she has served her sentence and deserves freedom from relentless media intrusion, not least because it jeopardizes her safety. Homolka has furthered this strategy by granting an exclusive interview with SRC (the French version of CBC), where she appeared demure and reasonable, playing to the sympathies of the public as a misunderstood, remorseful woman who deserves a second chance.

The impression that her crimes must not have been all that severe, given her light sentence, helps her make this case to the public, especially since the memory of what her and Bernardo did has faded over the years. And it’s easy to argue that she has paid her debt to society because she served her sentence in full. What’s easy to forget (as Senator Michel Biron must have done, when he appeared in court to support her), as the glare of the media spotlight glints off her carefully coifed hairstyle, is that her debt is paid so soon because she was never held fully accountable.

This spotlight is all about Karla. Karla sells papers and grabs viewers, so when those in the media consider the bottom-line – money – Karla is a good thing. She was interviewed by the French media partly because, according to her interviewer, Joyce Napier, she feels the English media gave her a “bad rap” (how unfair). With the power to boost the fortunes of broadcasters and journalists by granting exclusive interviews, perhaps it’s unsurprising the media is willing to have her appear in their studios – well-dressed and well-rehearsed, looking better (and speaking French better) than many of our politicians.

Her appearance in this manner scrapes open the wounds of the families she hurt so terribly and disrespects the memory of her victims. Why allow her to garner sympathy? What effect does this have on those unbalanced individuals in society who may look up to her, fantasize about her, perhaps even try to emulate her?

Better, I think, to ignore her. Let her scuffle off into the shadows of anonymity to live with her demons. Turning her into a celebrity just isn’t right, no matter how much it might sell papers and airtime. Our media should know better.