hi sir can you please help me on my assigntment. essay form.

answer all of the questions thoroughly, with evidence of excellent effort. While content is important, there shouldn't be any spelling, grammar, punctuation or sentence structure errors. Remember to Proof read your work!

1. The two sisters served 4 years of a 10 year sentence of 1st Degree Murder. They were released early from jail because of good behaviour, and remorse. Is this an example of "rehabilitation" or weak Canadian law?

2. The girls were 15 and 16 at the time of the murder. The Youth Criminal Justice Act does not allow them to be tried as Adults however they can get an Adult sentence if they have committed a presumptive offence. Did the sisters meet the provisions for an adult sentence?

3. The younger sister, the one who encouraged the murder, is now studying to be a lawyer. Should the Law Society allow her to become a lawyer? Why or why not?

4. The boyfriends knew about the murder. They could have stopped it. Did they have a duty to report it? Should they have been charged with being an accessory to murder?

5. The older sister, the one who committed the murder. Should she have received a harsher punishment? Why or why not?

Remember to give a synopsis of what happened including the facts in issue of the case (who, what, where, when, how, why)

In your report, include the following:

-difficulties police had with taking statements from the Youth and witnesses

-if the 2 accused rights were adhered to in regards to the interviews conducted

-What the YCJA allowed in regards to sentencing

-What the YCJA allowed in regards to suppression of identities

-If their rights were adhered to under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

-How they were dealt with by the legal system

BATHTUB MURDER CASE - BRAMPTON, ONTARIO 2003

(Names are changed)

Linda Andersen (April 15, 1959 - January 18, 2003) was the victim of premeditatedmurderby her two teenage daughters, Sandra and Elizabeth Andersen, on January 18, 2003 inMississauga, Ontario.^[1][2]The names Linda, Sandra and Elizabeth Andersen arealiasescreated by Bob Mitchell in an effort to protect their identities.

Since both were under the age of 18 at the time of the murder, their identities were protected under Canadian law. The names of the murderers and the victim were changed but were released by a Spanish news reporter as the Canadian law protecting the sisters' name was only applicable to the Canadian media.^[3]

Background

"Linda"^[4]raised her two daughters as a single mother after her husband (the sisters' father) had left. She had analcohol dependencyand suffered fromdepression. At the time of her death, Linda had one job after being fired.

According to police reports, "Sandra" and "Beth", aged 18 and 17 respectively,^[4]had become irritated of their mother "wasting...money on alcohol". They were also unhappy that their friends had "better things like swimming pools and clothes".^[5]Because of their discontent, the sisters began to search on the Internet for ways to kill their mother. Sandra and Beth believed that by killing their mother, they would be entitled to insurance money. This compensation, the sisters resolved, would be spent on a trip with their friends to Europe. The sisters decided to drown Linda because they believed it would be "fast and unspectacular". After formulating a murder plan, Sandra and Beth informed three of their friends, who all encouraged the sisters and laughed at the idea of murdering Linda.^[6][5]

Murder

During lunch time on January 18, 2003, the sisters began giving their mother liquor in order to get her drunk. Their plan was to make Linda fullyinebriatedso that she could not resist their attack. They also gave Linda sixTylenol 3tablets^[7](containingcodeine), to slow down her heartbeat. Sandra and Beth then waited for the drugs to work. While waiting, the sisters communicated with their friends online, one of whom ended their conversation with the phrase "well good luck - wear gloves".

Sandra and Beth filled the family bathtub with water and took Linda to the bathroom. Linda had difficulty getting into the bathtub, because of the mixture ofvodkaand pills she had been given. After putting gloves on, Sandra and Beth gave their mother a massage. Within minutes, according to police reports, Sandra instructed her mother to lie on her stomach so that she could scrub her back. Sandra instantly pushed her mother's head down and did not let go. After four minutes, Sandra released her mother's head and found Linda to be dead. After having killed their mother, Sandra and Beth went with their friends to a nearby restaurant where they celebrated their victory. Later that night, Sandra and Beth called9-1-1and informed them that they had found their mother lying in the bathtub.

The 9-1-1 operator told Sandra and Beth to take their mother out of the bathtub and to performCPR. The sisters cried over the phone, telling the operator that Linda could not be resuscitated. When police arrived, they believed Sandra and Beth's story.

The cause of death was determined to be drowning. Analysis of the deceased's bodily fluids disclosed very high levels of alcohol (around 400 mgs%) and drugs, includingcodeineandacetaminophen.^[8]

Arrest[

The defendants were arrested on January 21, 2004. The victim's death was officially considered to be accidental until a young male went to the police and told them that one of the defendants had confessed to him at a party that she and her sister had killed their mother. Following his report a car was provided to the young male friend, wired for audio and video by the police.^[8]Soon thereafter, under judicial authorization, each defendant was recorded describing what she said was her role in their mother's death. Sandra and Beth were subsequently arrested, tried, and sentenced to 10 years in prison for first degree murder. The sisters were separated by age and could not communicate with each other while in jail. They were released in 2009 and 2010 respectively.

Aftermath

The older sister, Sandra, was released to a halfway house in 2009, while the younger sister, Beth, was released a year later. The girls' father unsuccessfully attempted to have Beth released earlier so that she could complete her sentence under house arrest in their hometown. Since both Sandra and Beth were under the age of 18 at the time of the murder, their identities were protected under Canadian law and were not to be revealed by the Canadian media. A reporter from Spain released their information on a blog which garnered a lot of attention online. The Canadian law only applied to Canadian media and as the case initially did not garner a lot of worldwide coverage it was expected that the girls' identity would remain a secret.^[3][2]

Sandra intended to follow a career in law and after her release she was accepted to theUniversity of Waterloowith a $2000 scholarship; Beth traveled toOttawawith the intention of applying to university.

ASE STUDY - Bathtub Murders

2003, Brampton, Ontario. The defendants are sisters. ... They lived with their mother, a woman with a serious alcohol problem, though she maintained a responsible job. The mother died ... apparently having drowned in her bathtub after consuming a great deal of alcohol. Her death was officially considered accidental until ... it came to the police attention (approximately 1 year later) that the defendant C.K.1 had made statements to friends to the effect that she and C.K.2 had discussed and planned killing their mother; that when the opportunity arose, C.K.2 couldn't do it so C.K.1 herself held her drunken mother under the water. The sisters were 15 and 16 years old at the time of the offence.

Overview of the arrest and interrogations

The defendants were arrested at around 7 a.m. one year after the offence (2004) ... C.K.1 was read the appropriate cautions and warnings by the arresting officer. She was taken to the police station in her pajamas, though she had been given an opportunity to put on clothes, which she declined. C.K.2 was taken separately to the same police station. They were put in separate rooms and kept there for almost 11 hours, until just short of 6 p.m. C.K.1 confessed. C.K.2 did not. They continued to be detained and were later placed together in the same room having been warned that their conversation would be recorded. They were not taken to court ... or taken before a Justice of the Peace. They were held in police cells and taken before a Justice the next day for a bail hearing.

The Crown is seeking admission of C.K.1's statement. It is not tendering C.K.2's interrogation as evidence (she did not confess) but presents it as context for the conversation between the sisters and as part of the overall surrounding circumstances in regard to C.K.1's statements.

Interrogation of C.K.1

C.K.1, the elder sister, was placed in the polygraph suite and questioned by ... an officer with over 20 years' experience. She was advised of her rights under the Charter and the YCJA. She spoke to duty counsel on the telephone for about 10 minutes. Following that consultation, questioning and conversation of a general nature took place for an hour in order for the officer to establish a rapport with C.K.1. At about 10 o'clock the officer shifted the conversation in the direction of the offence under investigation. Over the next 2 and hours of questioning, C.K.1 denied any involvement and asserted her right to silence repeatedlyyet the questioning continued. Finally, around 12:30, 100 pages into the transcript, C.K.1 began to make tearful admissions that continued until almost 3 o'clock. C.K.1 then had a nap on the floor.

Interrogation of C.K.1timeline and additional detail

The interrogation of C.K.1 can be roughly divided into stages:

Introduction, rights: 7:35 - 9 a.m. ... C.K.1 is brought into the interview room. Her rights are explained. She is given an opportunity to have an adult present and she declines. She speaks to duty counsel.

Establishing rapport: 9 - 10 a.m. ... General conversation; conversation about alcoholism.

Accusations and denials: 10 - 12 noon ... Police officer started by saying that he knew she caused her mother's death. The theme is that he is only interested in knowing why she did it. Repeated denials by C.K.1 are not accepted and dismissed as being unacceptable. Possible morally less repugnant motives for killing are suggested by the police.

Asserting and overcoming right to silence: 11:56 - 12:27 ... Police officer plays an incriminating intercept and then starts to question her again. Over this period C.K.1 asserts her right to silence 17 times to my count. She also asks when she gets to go to ... court. (A: When we're done.) How long does she have to sit here? (A: When we're doneas long as it takes.) When can she call someone? (A: Later. When we're done.)

Reference to sister's degree of responsibility and confession: 12:20 - 2:54 ... The officer asks C.K.1 what she thinks should happen to her (punishment). He then asks what she thinks should happen to her sister. The theme is that the police will assume that sister C.K.2 is as much responsible as C.K.1 unless they hear otherwise from C.K.1. She continues to say that she does not want to say anything while simultaneously explaining that C.K.2 played only a small part. The impossibility of riding these two horses soon causes her to confess and provide details.

Interrogation of C.K.2

Meanwhile, in a separate room, C.K.2 was being questioned. ... When initially read her rights on arrest, at 7 a.m., she had requested the presence of her aunt ... with whom she lived. At about 8 a.m., on being read her rights again, she again requested the presence of her aunt. The aunt had been brought to the same police station in a separate police vehicle and was being interviewed by the police in a separate interview room. At about 11:15, over 4 hours after the initial request, the aunt was brought to C.K.2. They were left alone for a brief unmonitored private conversation. Following that conversation, the aunt made a request to contact private counsel. Ultimately C.K.2 spoke to duty counsel after which, at 1:40 p.m. questioning began with innocuous questions re: age, height, weight etc. "for our reports" but soon morphed into questioning about the alleged offence. C.K.2 consistently denied any involvement or refused to answer any questions without her lawyer. The interrogating officer gave up around 3:30p.m.

Interrogation of C.K.2timeline and further detail

Introduction and Rights: 7:22 - 8:15 ... C.K.2 requests the presence of her aunt.

Seeking counsel: 11:12 - 1:40 ... Aunt ... is finally brought to C.K.2, 4 hours after first requested on arrest. They have a private conversation. When the officer returns, the aunt requests her family lawyer. There is some difficulty finding that lawyer's number. An officer is dispatched to their home to find it. On consultation with that lawyer the aunt is referred to a criminal lawyer. ... At 12:35 a request is made to speak to [the