Karla Homolka will soon find out if the Crown is successful in getting a Section 810 order against her.

A Section 810 order allows a court to impose conditions on a released inmate if it feels the offender is a risk to public safety.

Homolka was sent to prison for some of the most repugnant crimes this country has ever seen: The kidnappings, sexual assault and killings of two Ontario school girls, Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy in the early 1990s.

For that, she entered a negotiated plea of guilty in 1993 to two counts of manslaughter – in exchange for testimony against her ex-husband, Paul Bernardo -- and was sentenced to 10 years. She was given another two years in connection with her sister Tammy's death, for a total of 12 years.

That agreement was called a "deal with the devil" by some critics. Tom Bryant, Bernardo's current lawyer, has called her the real killer of the two girls.

Unlike most inmates, she will have served virtually every day of her sentence when she is finally released in early July. Her ex-husband was convicted of first-degree murder and declared a dangerous offender. Bernardo is unlikely to ever be released from prison.

Usually, once a prisoner's sentence fully expires, he or she is a free citizen once again. The point of parole is to gradually release someone back into society while under some degree of supervision.

In Homolka's case, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty told reporters Tuesday: "As a matter of principle, the more restrictions, the better.

"I think, given the despicable nature of these crimes, people are very concerned about what she might do again and we have a responsibility to protect the public interest," he said.

But in a letter to The Globe and Mail, Halifax lawyer W. Michael Cooke said Wednesday: "Ms. Homolka is entitled to the benefit of the law, like any citizen. She has served her sentence completely, without the benefit of parole or any release program, and should be permitted to leave prison without further restraint imposed."

He described the Ontario government's use of section 810 as an "outlandish abuse."

Actually, the Ontario government agreed to the following in its plea agreement: "… they will leave the matter of when releases and/or parole should commence, up to the parole board without further comment."

Some critics of the government say by trying to control Homolka after her release, it is violating its plea agreement with her.

What do you think: Having served her sentence, should Homolka now be left alone to rebuild her life without being specially targeted, or is she such a threat to public safety that the Ontario government's extraordinary actions are justified?

Write us at newsonline@ctv.ca, and please include your full name and where you're from.

The CTV.ca mailbox has been filled with e-mail from Canadians across the country expressing their opinion regarding Karla Homolka's imminent release from prison. The responses have been edited in some cases for clarity or brevity.

Stephanie Marple, Ajax, Ont: In reading the other comments that have been posted, it is clear that the greatest concern with the government's application under Section 810 is the attention that should be given to Homolka's legal rights.  Yes, it is indeed true that she has served her sentence to its entirety, however people need to remember that under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms there is a preamble, stating that the rights outlined in the Charter and bestowed upon Canadians are subject to the limits prescribed by law, so long as they can be demostrably jusitifed.  This means that the government can determine whether or not a person is entitled to these rights.  I think all people can agree that Homolka is not an ordinary criminal, and thus her situation should not be addressed, nor compared to the norm.  The government's application under Section 810 is their means of denying Homolka of her legal rights upon release, and now the onus is upon them to demonstrably justify it before the courts. 

Mark Bedard: I would have to say that the current laws as they stand are a subject that has to be reviewed extensively. This deal with the devil should not have happened in the first place. Our laws as they stand should be changed enough is enough. The government should bring back capital punishment so we don't have to support the likes of Bernardo and Homolka the rest of their natural lives with our hard earned tax dollars.

Linda Meier: If I were the family of the victims, I would not rest until she was treated in accordance with her crime. Deals made like that should be broken. Why should she be treated fairly and justly, she doesn't deserve anything and shouldn't expect it.

David Williams: She did the crime; she's done the time. Let us all move on.

Maurice Benoit: Twelve years ago when the deal was struck to exchange a plea for testimony, perhaps we as a society were lulled into a false sense of security. Twelve years is a long time. Some of us cannot plan our lives beyond twelve weeks so her imminent release would have seemed a long time away. Could a conviction against Bernardo have been gained without her testimony? Although the so-called Section 810 may serve to curtail her movements in the short term, that particular point of law is not a one size fits all.

Tom Haverko: Karla has served her time. Yes, she may still be a threat, but you don't see anyone trying to impose all these restrictions on any other violent offender or even child molesters. You want to go after someone and make them pay for Karla's 'short' sentence? Go after the brain dead politicians, police and court officials that are the real bleeding hearts. They're the ones who make the laws and deals. Karla served her time, now, let her be and let her live her life.

Kim Hutchinson: Karla's sociopath characteristics put society at risk. The threat of incarceration alone is enough to deter most people.

Steve Thornton: I was privy to the 'details' of the deaths. Monitor her. She will re-offend. The public will not forget.

D. Leonard: The near mention of her name sickens me, the thought that she is coming out in public, is horrifying! This woman is a sadistic, manipulating and a sexual deviant! In a perfect world she would never get out, unfortunately for us we now have to deal with her.

Darlene Penney: I feel she should be left in prison the rest of her life, but not treated so well. As far as I can see she never suffered a day in there. Being a parent myself I feel bad for her family, but what she did is unforgivable. They may as well let him out to, he is every bit as bad as she is.

Bruce Read: She's done her time and paid the price set out by the courts. It's just too bad now that the justice system is having a second look, but a deal is a deal. Might want to look at why our system of justice is as dumb as a bag full of hammers though, and has been for decades.

Steve Boyd: It is understandable, the entire furor over the prospect of release for Ms Homolka. The public conscience seems to say that 12 years isn't enough. I tend to agree with that, feeling that 4 years per life (3 deaths, 12 year sentence), for a murderous, unrepentant criminal is an absolute travesty of justice and a failure of the system. Again, the rights of the offender come before the rights of the victims and their families. Those poor folks will never, ever regain what they lost, the loss of their children -- a pain that will never go away.

Ronnie Kupina: The only thing worse than the original plea agreement is attempts to put restrictions on a person who has served their full sentence out. Holmolka is by no means someone we should be worried over, except for what she is up to in the future. I am no fan of this mutt, but I do worry for the next person coming along, should the government find a way to pull this off.

Megan M.: I have no doubt that society is in great danger the day Karla is released. As a daughter of one of the key investigators on the Green Ribbon Task Force I saw first hand the devastation this caused all of the people involved with the case. The public needs to do everything it possibly can now to track her movements. I fear the law is limited in it's ability to track her but we can all vow to get the word out somehow if she is spotted anywhere in any community. We cannot just let her walk away!

Susan McNicoll; Vancouver, B.C.: By all means, let's be honourable and release her after she has completely served the sentence she was given. What garbage. She was, and always will be, a dangerous offender. That obvious fact should supercede any other consideration. I am not quite sure I understand why she is not being charged with her sister's murder. Would that not be one way to get her back in prison? She certainly had a great deal of culpability in her sister's death. Why anyone in her family would want anything to do with her is beyond me. She likely will be released without supervision and then a few years down the road we all will be dealing the ramifications of that decision.

Debbie Knowles; Delta, B.C.: I am in total agreement with the government of Ontario that they be allowed to impose restrictions on Karla Hamolka.They have a duty to the citizens of the province as well as any other that she wishes to go to. There should never have been a plea deal with her in the first place, and from all that I have written about her lack of remorse and tendancy to re-offend, she is not a productive citizen of society. You better believe that if word ever started that she would be heading West to BC, I would be the first to jump on the bandwagon to keep her out.
When are we as a society going to stop letting the criminals have the same rights of the peoples they have harmed?

Bryan Mason: She has served her entire sentence in accordance with her plea agreement which was approved and accepted by both the Crown lawyers and the Judge in her original case. To impose further penalties and restrictions on her would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

In order for her to re-integrate into society she must be able to see the end of her incarceration. If the Ontario government wanted to impose indefinite supervision they should have tried to have her declared a dangerous offender at her initial plea and sentencing.

Kayla D'Arcy-Goldrick; Ottawa, Ont.: It is a crime that this woman was not given a life sentence in the first place! If she is to be released then there is a duty of the government to watch her like a hawk and make sure that she can never do these atrocities again!

DonnaMae Halibert; Calgary, Alta.: It appears to be obvious to everyone, excluding the people who make the laws, that Karla Homolka is still one sick puppy. Why else is such a tremendous effort being made to have her movements restricted once she is released?

Many Canadians, I believe, are hoping that "someone" will relieve our country of her once she is released. I don't think anyone will really miss her, except for the victims that will then be able to finish their lives in some resemblance of peace.

Sherry Stein; Vancouver, B.C.: I am appalled at the response of the "do-gooders" who despite knowing how heinous Homolka's crimes were, and that professionals state she is still dangerous, think she deserves to be treated like any normal released convict. Huh? She isn't normal!!

I would like to see the same consideration, kindness and concern bestowed on the poor families who for the rest of their lives will suffer because of her crimes. They don't get "to go back to a normal life" so why should Homolka.

L. Peters; Ottawa, Ont.: She has served her sentence and presumably there is no legal clause stating that this person's maximum sentence is subject to any legal change irregardless of whether or not she has been deemed to be "reformed". So we have to live with her legal release.

Do we need maximum sentences to be more fluid, and subject to the same review process that parole is subjected to? Perhaps. But that's up to the lawmakers. I'm all for monitoring dangerous offenders upon release, but we've got to follow our own rules and if we don't like them as a society, change them.

Leslie-Ann Adams; Vancouver, B.C.: I believe she is a threat to society still. When she did those crimes, she knew what she was doing. I would be afraid of her. Please keep a close eye on her for the public's safety.

Ann Collett; Campbellford, Ontario: She is as guilty as her monstrous ex-husband in those killings. Her sentence was far too lenient. Yes, she should be subject to Section 810.