Parole Is An Easy Way Out Of Jail

Denise Norman – September 14, 2007

“THAT’S enough now guys” – those were the last words that my cousin Aaron Webster spoke in his short life of 41 years.

Aaron was attacked by five young men in the early hours of November 17, 2001.  They came from South Burnaby, a 45-minute drive, to have some fun or “sport” as they called it.  Their idea of “sport” was to go to Stanley Park to beat-up “peeping toms.”  That was their story and they stuck to it.  Aaron was in a well-known “gay-stroll” area of Stanley Park that these young men had ventured into before, at least 3 times, so they damn-well knew gay men were there.  This was a hate crime.  They targeted gay men as Nazi youth targeted Jews in the Second World War, however only one judge – Valmont Romilley – deemed it a hate crime.

Almost 6 years have passed since Aaron was murdered.  Trying to get justice for Aaron has been one of my unofficial jobs since then.  The late Sean Trotsky, one of two detectives who came to our home the day Aaron was murdered, we were Aaron’s emergency contact, told my husband Fred and me that, although the media were “all over this crime,” in the end it would be up to us to get justice for Aaron.  Trotsky said that after they found the killers and got convictions, these guys would try and get out of jail and it would be up to us to try and prevent it.  He said make sure you attend court, speak up for Aaron, and go to the parole hearings.

On February 5, 2005, Ryan Cran was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to six years in the penitentiary.  He was the only adult sentenced in the crime.

It was Cran’s idea to go to Stanley Park to beat up “peeping toms,” i.e. gay men.  Cran was the “agent of power” in Aaron’s murder.  It was his idea.  He bought alcohol to get the under-aged youths drunk and riled up.  He drove his car, loaded with weapons – bats, a golf club and pool cue – the 45-minute drive from South Burnaby to Stanley Park in Vancouver.  He handed out the weapons.  Ryan helped “track” Aaron down like an animal would its prey.  Mr. Cran left Aaron to die.  He did NOT get help, he did NOT tell them to stop hitting Aaron, he did NOT call 911 on his cell phone, and he did NOT go to police to tell them what happened.  In fact, he helped cover up the crime.  During the long car ride back he discussed how to “cover up” the crime with his cohorts.  He got rid of the weapons.  He spoke to the friend where the pool cue came from to “enforce” a “code of silence” amongst the youths.  However Cran couldn’t resist his ego; he bragged about the crime saying “we lynched a guy.”

Cran stuck to his “not guilty” stance to the end.  At his sentencing hearing – he still wouldn’t admit his role, saying, in a pathetic statement to the court, “I’m sorry I had friends who killed someone.”  His mother, in her statement, said that the police were hounding her poor son day in and day out and went to the “horrible” extent to tell Cran’s TWO girlfriends that they both existed; each believing she was his only girlfriend.

With NO victim advocate to help us we had to be vigilant in finding out information ourselves.  We had to learn to ask the “right questions” and ask them of the “right people.”  Once Cran was convicted, I knew his next steps would be appealing his conviction and sentence and, if unsuccessful, then seeking an early release on parole.

During the legal aspects of a case – applications for bail, trial and sentencing – victims are entitled to benefits such as travel expenses and counseling. Even though we are Aaron’s cousins, the provincial government did not see us as victims.  We attended 95% of all hearings of any kind for all four persons who were initially charged, but couldn’t claim any kind of benefit, not even the money we spent on parking.  Any counseling to help us deal with the crime was not available to us.

However the federal parole board DID accept us as victims so long as we registered with them. After registering I was able to find out what prison Cran was in and the various dates he would be eligible for escorted day release, unescorted day release, day parole, full parole, and mandated release.  Fred and I were the only persons registered as victims of Ryan Cran.

In February 2007 Fred and I received notice that Cran had made application for both “day” and “full” parole.  The parole board sent an information package that was very detailed in explaining what happens at a parole hearing. We were given a contact person at the National Parole Board – Pacific Region – to call and ask questions – and I took full advantage of this.  She was very professional and extremely helpful in getting some of Aaron’s other relatives registered as victims

My “big” question was “What is the difference between “day” and “full” parole?”  I was surprised that there isn’t much.  You’d think “day” parole means you’re out of jail during the day and in jail at night right?  NOPE.  Day parole means you’re at a halfway house.  You have to be in the house at night.  Full parole means you’re out on your own, at a friends place, with your parents, anywhere.  I was very surprised to hear that only 4% of convicted criminals actually serve their entire sentence – so that means that 96% of convicted criminals are let out of prison BEFORE their “time is up.”

In the United States most criminals serve at least one half of their sentence before parole eligibility.  If convicted of second degree murder they must serve 15 years.  If convicted of first degree murder that means LIFE and only a judge can give permission for a parole hearing.  I’m not saying the American system is perfect but surely we ought to look at the way they handle parole as part of a re-assessment of what we do with parole.

I found the parole board very accommodating. We were encouraged to submit a statement about our thoughts on the crime, the criminal, and his parole application.  We were informed that our statement could be written, audio, video, or video-conferencing; and we were told that we could read out our statement or simply attend and let someone else read it, or just attend.  The parole board actually took into consideration our thoughts and views which was refreshing to us as victims in that we had been silenced by the courts.  The only “restrictions” were that we could not use profanity or threaten the convict.  It was so different than being in court when criminals are sentenced; where defense lawyers are able to demand changes in victim statements. Cran’s lawyer forced Aaron’s sister to take out the word “murderer” because Cran was convicted of manslaughter, not murder. But at the parole hearing she referred to Cran as a murderer without anyone being able to change her ideas and thoughts.

However, like the court system, Cran is entitled to all documents pertaining to his parole hearing at least one month prior.  That meant we had to submit our statements more than one month before the hearing and he would get to read them over and “prepare” his statement after reading ours.  This upset all of us.  Teachers don’t give students their tests to study one month before examinations.  Why should the criminal get to read our thoughts and ideas about the crime and him?  For too many criminals, especially sociopaths, reading how their victims feel will only empower them.

I believe that Ryan Cran is a sociopath; so I made sure my statement was focused on the crime, and why he should stay in prison.  I phoned and emailed as many of Aaron’s “immediate” family to encourage them to write and submit statements and even attend the hearing.  If you are a victim of crime it’s important to voice your opinions and the parole board does take into account your thoughts about the crime and the perpetrator.

I am also aware of Canada’s belief in rehabilitation. However, none of Aaron Webster’s murderers were said to have exhibited warning signs of their potential to kill.  How many in-jail “programs” can an inmate be required to complete, a person without a history of violence, and then the “system” says okay – you’re rehabilitated?  There has to be a balance between rehabilitation and the need to protect society in order to restore people’s belief in the justice system.

In my opinion, criminals convicted of violent offences – murder, manslaughter, rape etc, must be required to serve at least two thirds of their sentence BEFORE being allowed to apply for parole.  After all, if it takes 13 years to educate a student here in B.C. then perpetrators of violence need time in jail to not only reflect on the crime they have committed but also the effect it had on their victim, the victim’s family, their own family, and society.  Reflection requires many hours of “alone time” to think and write down thoughts.  It cannot be done in one third of a sentence.

To achieve justice victims of a crime must be vigilant, skeptical and persistent in getting information.  Many people think that victims can stand aside when criminals are caught, brought to trial, convicted and sentenced; but it is not so.

In our case, Aaron was murdered.  That is permanent.  We are given a life sentence.  Daily reminders, holidays without Aaron, other crimes bring memories back too.  The pain is always there.

Aaron is dead forever; and so I will forever seek out justice for him; and others like him.

Denise Norman

AFTERWORD:

On April 3, 2007 the parole board conducted a hearing to determine whether Cran was eligible for parole. The board members had access to court decisions, reports of probation officers and victim statements, written and oral; they also heard testimony from Cran and his mother. Two members of the board asked questions of Cran in a rigorous manner, focusing on his actions, regrets, remorse, and his ability to think how he might have done things differently. Unlike proceedings in court, the parole hearing required Cran to answer all questions. His words of remorse sounded rehearsed; he couldn’t express any ideas on what he’d do differently. The board was told that he had been caught drinking alcohol while at Ferndale Penitentiary and Cran was unable explain why he broke the rules against such behavior.

Although his probation officer recommended only day parole the parole board dismissed Cran’s bid for both day and full parole.